On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:30:17PM -0400, Joel E. Denny wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bob Rossi wrote: > > In a few of these, it describes the > > difference when the push parser option is used. I can't really remember > > how you eventually got the push parser working. What are the valid > > combinations of options with pure/push/normal parsing? Should we > > describe them all in a manual? > > The user can declare either %push-parser or %push-pull-parser. If he > declares both, the last one declared has precedence, but I'm not sure > that's permanent behavior. The user should just declare one or the other.
OK. I don't even know what push-pull-parser does. When I submitted the patch, I only had support for push-parser and pure-parser didn't effect it at all. You did some improvements to the patch, and we ended up with push-pull-parser as well. My question is, is push-parser still the same idea as what I committed? If so, what is push-pull-parser? With out knowing what it is, the name seems odd to me. You can have a push parser, and you can have a pull parser, but what's a push-pull-parser? :) > You can use %pure-parser in combination with either %push-parser or > %push-pull-parser. OK, I remember this. What was the benefit of providing this functionality to the user? How would I describe the tradeoffs to the user in the manual? My original patch only provided the pure version. > > One other question, is it important to have an example in the manual > > showing how the push parser works? > > I think that would be great. > > Thanks for working on this. Thank you for the help! I get uncomfortable with unfinished projects. Bob Rossi _______________________________________________ help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison