On 06/29/2012 10:09 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 28 juin 2012 à 17:28, Timothy Madden a écrit :
First, it looks like you want to migrate from old bison to the newer bison++.
Why do you qualify Bison as old, and Bison++ as newer? The
latest release of Bison for instance is about one month old.
If that is so, it means you want to generate a bison C++ parser, instead of a
bison C parser. This means your question is about whether or not to migrate
from C to C++. It is not necessarily a topic for a bison discussion group, but
it might still be considered somewhat related.
Bison does produce C++ parsers.
Unlike in flex, the bison C++ interface is not marked as experimental, so you
should be safe with it, but you should know that GLR parsers currently need the
C interface from the old bison.
That is true and false. First, there is a GLR C++ parser,
that works. But it does not support the variants, that's
the only issue.
Oh .. sorry I was under the impression they are actually the same
program, with bison++ being a symbolic link to bison (on my CentOS 6.2
flex++ is such a symlink to flex, so I figured it must be the same with
bison, though I have no bison++ installed).
As I thought them to be the same, I only talked about bison being "old"
and bison++ being "new" to keep a simplified view of the things for the
OP, which looks to me like he wants a simplified view. By bison++ I
meant "bison with the C++ interface", which I would say is "new" based
on (in relation to) the fact that it emerged after the C interface.
About the GLR it just did not work for me, which I suspect is because
distributions do not update their package as fast as one month, so there
are still people who don't have the latest version, although they are
up-to-date with their OS distribution.
Sorry for the confusion,
Timothy Madden
_______________________________________________
help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
