Re: push parser

[Joel E. Denny]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:

> > I notice you keep saying *the* pure parser rather than *a* pure parser.
> > I think this is the discrepancy between our views.  In my view,
> > %pure-parser is not a separate kind of parser.  Instead, it's one of many
> > variables defining the parser output by Bison.  In theory, it should be
> > possible to have any of the following combinations:
> >
> >   impure LALR(1) pull C
> >   pure   LALR(1) pull C
> >   impure GLR     pull C
> >   pure   GLR     pull C
> >   impure LALR(1) push C
> >   pure   LALR(1) push C
> >   impure GLR     push C
> >   pure   GLR     push C
> >   (Now repeat the list for C++.)
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure this is true. There is no impure push parser. It's not
> possible. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sure it is.  Just convert all the fields of yypstate to global variables.  
Of course, that would be ugly, so I'm glad you decided not to allow that 
possibility.