Re: push parser

[Bob Rossi]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:30:17PM -0400, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > In a few of these, it describes the
> > difference when the push parser option is used. I can't really remember
> > how you eventually got the push parser working. What are the valid
> > combinations of options with pure/push/normal parsing? Should we
> > describe them all in a manual?
> 
> The user can declare either %push-parser or %push-pull-parser.  If he 
> declares both, the last one declared has precedence, but I'm not sure 
> that's permanent behavior.  The user should just declare one or the other.

OK. I don't even know what push-pull-parser does. When I submitted the
patch, I only had support for push-parser and pure-parser didn't effect 
it at all. You did some improvements to the patch, and we ended up
with push-pull-parser as well. My question is, is push-parser still
the same idea as what I committed? If so, what is push-pull-parser?

With out knowing what it is, the name seems odd to me. You can have a
push parser, and you can have a pull parser, but what's a
push-pull-parser? :)

> You can use %pure-parser in combination with either %push-parser or 
> %push-pull-parser.

OK, I remember this. What was the benefit of providing this
functionality to the user? How would I describe the tradeoffs to the
user in the manual? My original patch only provided the pure version.

> > One other question, is it important to have an example in the manual
> > showing how the push parser works?
> 
> I think that would be great.
> 
> Thanks for working on this.

Thank you for the help! I get uncomfortable with unfinished projects.

Bob Rossi