Re: push parser implemenation

[Bob Rossi]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:11:31PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Bob Rossi <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > OK, I see. So, currently, when you choose push-parser, I have the
> > skeleton generate a function prototype:
> >   void yyparse (void *PVVOID);
> >
> > Do you suggest I keep this functionality, and allow the user to use
> > the %parse-param option on top of that? or do you suggest I should 
> > not automatically generate the "void *PVVOID" parameter, and force the
> > user to use %pase-param along with %push-parser?
> 
> I was thinking the latter.  It's more type-safe.  And it's simpler
> not to give the user an option they don't really need.

I'm not sure I like doing it the latter way. This would mean that the
user would have to do "%push-parser %parse-param (void *PVVOID)" in 
order to get a valid push parser, instead of just doing %push-parser.
I think this would cause a lot of user confusion.

Plus, the yyparse function internally uses the parameter PVVOID, in
order to access the push parser. With this information, do you still
think I should it the "%push-parser %parse-param (void *PVVOID)" way?

This is the last issue I have in regards to finishing up the patch to
the testsuite, so any info you can help me with would be great.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi