parser: style changes

[bison.git] / TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index 634082ab642e696ff91c8c465af1658edf8849ee..02f3efb34ff9371010fda9bd2c0680ed260ccdc4 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,4 +1,51 @@
--*- outline -*-
+* Short term
+** m4 names
+b4_shared_declarations is no longer what it is.  Make it
+b4_parser_declaration for instance.
+
+** glr.cc: %defines
+it should not be mandatory.
+
+** $ and others in epilogue
+A stray $ is a warning in the actions, but an error in the epilogue.
+IMHO, it should not even be a warning in the epilogue.
+
+** stack.hh
+Get rid of it.  The original idea is nice, but actually it makes
+the code harder to follow, and uselessly different from the other
+skeletons.
+
+** Variable names.
+What should we name `variant' and `lex_symbol'?
+
+** Get rid of fake #lines [Bison: ...]
+Possibly as simple as checking whether the column number is nonnegative.
+
+I have seen messages like the following from GCC.
+
+<built-in>:0: fatal error: opening dependency file .deps/libltdl/argz.Tpo: No such file or directory
+
+
+** Discuss about %printer/%destroy in the case of C++.
+It would be very nice to provide the symbol classes with an operator<<
+and a destructor.  Unfortunately the syntax we have chosen for
+%destroy and %printer make them hard to reuse.  For instance, the user
+is invited to write something like
+
+   %printer { debug_stream() << $$; } <my_type>;
+
+which is hard to reuse elsewhere since it wants to use
+"debug_stream()" to find the stream to use.  The same applies to
+%destroy: we told the user she could use the members of the Parser
+class in the printers/destructors, which is not good for an operator<<
+since it is no longer bound to a particular parser, it's just a
+(standalone symbol).
+
+** Rename LR0.cc
+as lr0.cc, why upper case?
+
+** bench several bisons.
+Enhance bench.pl with %b to run different bisons.

 
 * Various
 ** YYERRCODE
 
 * Various
 ** YYERRCODE


@@ -7,62 +54,54 @@ number for the error token, which POSIX wants to be 256, but which
 Bison might renumber if the user used number 256.  Keep fix and doc?
 Throw away?
 
 Bison might renumber if the user used number 256.  Keep fix and doc?
 Throw away?
 

-** YYFAIL
-It is seems to be *really* obsolete now, shall we remove it?
-
-** YYBACKUP
-There is no test about it, no examples in the doc, and I'm not sure
-what it should look like.  For instance what follows crashes.
-
-  %error-verbose
-  %debug
-  %pure-parser
-  %code {
-  # include <stdio.h>
-  # include <stdlib.h>
-  # include <assert.h>
-
-    static void yyerror (const char *msg);
-    static int yylex (YYSTYPE *yylval);
-  }
-  %%
-  exp:
-    'a'   { printf ("a: %d\n", $1); }
-  | 'b'   { YYBACKUP('a', 123); }
-  ;
-  %%
-  static int
-  yylex (YYSTYPE *yylval)
-  {
-    static char const input[] = "b";
-    static size_t toknum;
-    assert (toknum < sizeof input);
-    *yylval = (toknum + 1) * 10;
-    return input[toknum++];
-  }
-
-  static void
-  yyerror (const char *msg)
+Also, why don't we output the token name of the error token in the
+output?  It is explicitly skipped:
+
+      /* Skip error token and tokens without identifier.  */
+      if (sym != errtoken && id)
+
+Of course there are issues with name spaces, but if we disable we have
+something which seems to be more simpler and more consistent instead
+of the special case YYERRCODE.
+
+   enum yytokentype {
+     error = 256,
+     // ...
+   };
+
+
+We could (should?) also treat the case of the undef_token, which is
+numbered 257 for yylex, and 2 internal.  Both appear for instance in
+toknum:
+
+  const unsigned short int
+  parser::yytoken_number_[] =

   {
   {

-    fprintf (stderr, "%s\n", msg);
-  }
+       0,   256,   257,   258,   259,   260,   261,   262,   263,   264,
+
+while here

 
 

-  int
-  main (void)
+   enum yytokentype {
+     TOK_EOF = 0,
+     TOK_EQ = 258,
+
+so both 256 and 257 are "mysterious".
+
+  const char*
+  const parser::yytname_[] =

   {
   {

-    yydebug = !!getenv("YYDEBUG");
-    return yyparse ();
-  }
+  "\"end of command\"", "error", "$undefined", "\"=\"", "\"break\"",
+

 
 ** yychar == yyempty_
 The code in yyerrlab reads:
 
       if (yychar <= YYEOF)
 
 ** yychar == yyempty_
 The code in yyerrlab reads:
 
       if (yychar <= YYEOF)

-       {
-         /* Return failure if at end of input.  */
-         if (yychar == YYEOF)
-           YYABORT;
-       }
+        {
+          /* Return failure if at end of input.  */
+          if (yychar == YYEOF)
+            YYABORT;
+        }

 
 There are only two yychar that can be <= YYEOF: YYEMPTY and YYEOF.
 But I can't produce the situation where yychar is YYEMPTY here, is it
 
 There are only two yychar that can be <= YYEOF: YYEMPTY and YYEOF.
 But I can't produce the situation where yychar is YYEMPTY here, is it


@@ -77,30 +116,27 @@ including the separation bw declaration and definition.  See for
 instance b4_table_define in lalr1.cc.  This way, we could even factor
 C vs. C++ definitions.
 
 instance b4_table_define in lalr1.cc.  This way, we could even factor
 C vs. C++ definitions.
 

-* Header guards
-
-From Franc,ois: should we keep the directory part in the CPP guard?
-
-
-* Yacc.c: CPP Macros
-
-Do some people use YYPURE, YYLSP_NEEDED like we do in the test suite?
-They should not: it is not documented.  But if they need to, let's
-find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...).
+* From lalr1.cc to yacc.c
+** Single stack
+Merging the three stacks in lalr1.cc simplified the code, prompted for
+other improvements and also made it faster (probably because memory
+management is performed once instead of three times).  I suggest that
+we do the same in yacc.c.

 
 

+** yysyntax_error
+The code bw glr.c and yacc.c is really alike, we can certainly factor
+some parts.

 
 

-* Installation
-
-* Documentation
-Before releasing, make sure the documentation ("Understanding your
-parser") refers to the current `output' format.
-
-* lalr1.cc
-** I18n
-Catch up with yacc.c.

 
 * Report
 
 
 * Report
 

+** Figures
+Some statistics about the grammar and the parser would be useful,
+especially when asking the user to send some information about the
+grammars she is working on.  We should probably also include some
+information about the variables (I'm not sure for instance we even
+specify what LR variant was used).
+

 **  GLR
 How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions?  In particular,
 what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead token, but one is
 **  GLR
 How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions?  In particular,
 what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead token, but one is


@@ -129,36 +165,11 @@ DeRemer and Penello: they already provide the algorithm.
 
 * Extensions
 
 
 * Extensions
 

-** Labeling the symbols
-Have a look at the Lemon parser generator: instead of $1, $2 etc. they
-can name the values.  This is much more pleasant.  For instance:
-
-       exp (res): exp (a) '+' exp (b) { $res = $a + $b; };
-
-I love this.  I have been bitten too often by the removal of the
-symbol, and forgetting to shift all the $n to $n-1.  If you are
-unlucky, it compiles...
-
-But instead of using $a etc., we can use regular variables.  And
-instead of using (), I propose to use `:' (again).  Paul suggests
-supporting `->' in addition to `:' to separate LHS and RHS. In other
-words:
-
-       r:exp -> a:exp '+' b:exp { r = a + b; };
-
-That requires an significant improvement of the grammar parser.  Using
-GLR would be nice.  It also requires that Bison know the type of the
-symbols (which will be useful for %include anyway).  So we have some
-time before...
-
-Note that there remains the problem of locations: `@r'?
-
-

 ** $-1
 We should find a means to provide an access to values deep in the
 stack.  For instance, instead of
 
 ** $-1
 We should find a means to provide an access to values deep in the
 stack.  For instance, instead of
 

-       baz: qux { $$ = $<foo>-1 + $<bar>0 + $1; }
+        baz: qux { $$ = $<foo>-1 + $<bar>0 + $1; }

 
 we should be able to have:
 
 
 we should be able to have:
 


@@ -191,13 +202,13 @@ XML output for GNU Bison
 * Unit rules
 Maybe we could expand unit rules, i.e., transform
 
 * Unit rules
 Maybe we could expand unit rules, i.e., transform
 

-       exp: arith | bool;
-       arith: exp '+' exp;
-       bool: exp '&' exp;
+        exp: arith | bool;
+        arith: exp '+' exp;
+        bool: exp '&' exp;

 
 into
 
 
 into
 

-       exp: exp '+' exp | exp '&' exp;
+        exp: exp '+' exp | exp '&' exp;

 
 when there are no actions.  This can significantly speed up some
 grammars.  I can't find the papers.  In particular the book `LR
 
 when there are no actions.  This can significantly speed up some
 grammars.  I can't find the papers.  In particular the book `LR


@@ -213,27 +224,22 @@ this issue.  Does anybody have it?
 Some history of Bison and some bibliography would be most welcome.
 Are there any Texinfo standards for bibliography?
 
 Some history of Bison and some bibliography would be most welcome.
 Are there any Texinfo standards for bibliography?
 

-
-
-* Java, Fortran, etc.
-
-

 * Coding system independence
 Paul notes:
 
 * Coding system independence
 Paul notes:
 

-       Currently Bison assumes 8-bit bytes (i.e. that UCHAR_MAX is
-       255).  It also assumes that the 8-bit character encoding is
-       the same for the invocation of 'bison' as it is for the
-       invocation of 'cc', but this is not necessarily true when
-       people run bison on an ASCII host and then use cc on an EBCDIC
-       host.  I don't think these topics are worth our time
-       addressing (unless we find a gung-ho volunteer for EBCDIC or
-       PDP-10 ports :-) but they should probably be documented
-       somewhere.
+        Currently Bison assumes 8-bit bytes (i.e. that UCHAR_MAX is
+        255).  It also assumes that the 8-bit character encoding is
+        the same for the invocation of 'bison' as it is for the
+        invocation of 'cc', but this is not necessarily true when
+        people run bison on an ASCII host and then use cc on an EBCDIC
+        host.  I don't think these topics are worth our time
+        addressing (unless we find a gung-ho volunteer for EBCDIC or
+        PDP-10 ports :-) but they should probably be documented
+        somewhere.

 
 

-       More importantly, Bison does not currently allow NUL bytes in
-       tokens, either via escapes (e.g., "x\0y") or via a NUL byte in
-       the source code.  This should get fixed.
+        More importantly, Bison does not currently allow NUL bytes in
+        tokens, either via escapes (e.g., "x\0y") or via a NUL byte in
+        the source code.  This should get fixed.

 
 * --graph
 Show reductions.
 
 * --graph
 Show reductions.


@@ -243,29 +249,6 @@ Show reductions.
 ** Skeleton strategy
 Must we keep %token-table?
 
 ** Skeleton strategy
 Must we keep %token-table?
 

-* BTYacc
-See if we can integrate backtracking in Bison.  Charles-Henri de
-Boysson <de-boy_c@epita.fr> has been working on this, but never gave
-the results.
-
-Vadim Maslow, the maintainer of BTYacc was once contacted.  Adjusting
-the Bison grammar parser will be needed to support some extra BTYacc
-features.  This is less urgent.
-
-** Keeping the conflicted actions
-First, analyze the differences between byacc and btyacc (I'm referring
-to the executables).  Find where the conflicts are preserved.
-
-** Compare with the GLR tables
-See how isomorphic the way BTYacc and the way the GLR adjustments in
-Bison are compatible.  *As much as possible* one should try to use the
-same implementation in the Bison executables.  I insist: it should be
-very feasible to use the very same conflict tables.
-
-** Adjust the skeletons
-Import the skeletons for C and C++.
-
-

 * Precedence
 
 ** Partial order
 * Precedence
 
 ** Partial order


@@ -332,10 +315,32 @@ to bison. If you're interested, I'll work on a patch.
 * Better graphics
 Equip the parser with a means to create the (visual) parse tree.
 
 * Better graphics
 Equip the parser with a means to create the (visual) parse tree.
 

+* Complaint submessage indentation.
+We already have an implementation that works fairly well for named
+reference messages, but it would be nice to use it consistently for all
+submessages from Bison.  For example, the "previous definition"
+submessage or the list of correct values for a %define variable might
+look better with indentation.
+
+However, the current implementation makes the assumption that the
+location printed on the first line is not usually much shorter than the
+locations printed on the submessage lines that follow.  That assumption
+may not hold true as often for some kinds of submessages especially if
+we ever support multiple grammar files.
+
+Here's a proposal for how a new implementation might look:
+
+  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2009-09/msg00086.html
+
+
+Local Variables:
+mode: outline
+coding: utf-8
+End:
+

 -----
 
 -----
 

-Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 Free Software Foundation,
-Inc.
+Copyright (C) 2001-2004, 2006, 2008-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

 
 This file is part of Bison, the GNU Compiler Compiler.
 
 
 This file is part of Bison, the GNU Compiler Compiler.