Laurence Finston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm currently trying to gain some experience with flex and bison. > I've found that I prefer using Flex and Bison separately rather than > together. If you're just starting out learning Bison, I think you > might find it easier to write your own `yylex()' function rather than > using Flex.
As I've already got the flex part working, I wouldn't like to change this right now :-) >> In one of my >> projects, I'd like to use these two tools together with some Qt classes. I'm >> not trying to create an object-oriented parser, I'm just using Qt's string >> and >> list objects as I'm much more familiar with them. > Perhaps it would simplify matters if you just used the `string' and `list' > template classes from the C++ Standard Template Library. You don't need > to generate a C++ parser function. I just generate an ordinary C parser > function, use C++ in the actions, and compile with `g++'. I prefer Qt to STL - not only because I know it better, but also because of the documentation. I haven't found an adequate documentation for STL yet, sorry :-) As for the parser function - actually, I'm not using C++ parser functions right now, and I don't want to. What I need is a procedural (non-oo) parser that sets up an object tree representing the contents of the input file. This object tree is then (or rather "will then be") used to create the output. Volker -- * Volker Wegert * http://www.volker-wegert.de/contact * * 141 Reasons why you can't find your system administrator: 68. It's 9 * AM. He/she is not working that late. * _______________________________________________ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
