Re: push parser

[Akim Demaille]

>>> "Bob" == Bob Rossi <address@hidden> writes:

 > I added the %push-parser option, so that a bison input grammar file can
 > ask for itself to be a push-parser.

What should Bison knows about this?  is it just a means to select the
right skeleton, or it actually changes something for bison itself?

 > This simple enhancement to bison already raises questions. A
 > %push-parse and %pure-parser don't make sense together. The local
 > variables store in %pure-parser are already stored in the context
 > that is used when %push-parser is used. Is it OK to have to
 > competing options like this? They make sense by themselves, but not
 > together. Is there a precedent in bison that I can simply follow?
 > Possibly it should be an error to declare both of these?

I wouldn't worry too much about useless options and I actually don't:
C++ parsers are of course pure, but %pure-parser can be set or not, it
doesn't change anything.