Re: Flex and Bison C++ Example

[Robert Hollencamp]

I ended up removing the offending paragraph completely – it really didn’t
add anything to the post and gave people the wrong impression about the
differences between the C skeleton and C++ skeleton. If you are playing with
tools like Flex and Bison you probably know enough to decide for yourself
whether you should use C or C++, so the pros and cons of this argument are
left for the reader to decide.


-- 
Robert Hollencamp
address@hidden
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Istvan Sandor <address@hidden> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I definitely wouldn't say this:
>
> "Edit: March 7 2010 [...] In C mode, the generated
> code uses global variables to store information, making them
> non-thread-safe. It is also a pain to create multiple different parsers
> / scanners and include them in the same program. Using C++ mode, all of
> the data needed is encapsulated by the object, making all of the
> generated code reentrant. You can have multiple different parsers /
> scanners in the same program, and instantiate and use multiple instances
> of each at the same time."
>
> This simply isn't true, you can generate reentrant parsers with bison
> and you can also safely have multiple different parsers by renaming
> yyparse() and the like.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Istvan
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 09:05:30PM -0500, Robert Hollencamp wrote:
> > I made an example of using Flex and Bison together in C++ and was
> wondering
> > if you guys could provide some feedback. Despite the C++ interface being
> > 'experimental' I found it works out pretty good after you figure it out.
> >
> > http://www.thewaffleshop.net/2010/03/06/flex-bison-cpp-example/
> >
> > --
> > Robert Hollencamp
> > address@hidden
> > _______________________________________________
> > address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison