Re: language neutral parser

[Axel Kittenberger]

> You still speak about the order of the finished result, not the order of
> the entries in the course of the algorithm.

And what could that be in example, maybe it's clearer if showing it on an 
example.

> So is your suggestion that Bison should write XML and only that?

Why not? If it comes additionally with a XML2C and an XML2C++ converter out 
of the box....

> It is true that in current Bison, speed isn't crucial. But if it should be
> augmented with new features, say other, more complex algorithms, inverting
> of tables and such, it might be important. Also you want to traverse trees
> and the like many times, then the time complexity might become prohibitive,
> so that whereas times are reasonable with small grammars, they become
> impossible with large grammars.

I took as example one of the most worst case uses of bison: the gnu c 
compiler:
----
address@hidden:~/gcc/gcc-3.0/gcc > time bison c-parse.y
 
real    0m0.122s
user    0m0.120s
sys     0m0.000s
----

So plenty of space here :o)

I agree that having faster compile times is something always welcome, but the 
discussion is what your priorities are.

- Axel
-- 
|D) http://www.dtone.org