Le 24 avr. 09 à 08:37, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
Hi Akim,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 21 avr. 09 à 12:32, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
+Generate a deterministic or GLR parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or\n\
+canonical LR(1) parser tables.\n\
Why not ascending order?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Actually, I'm not sure either. Forget it :) This order is from
coarser and smaller to finer and bigger, it's fine.
And shouldn't we s/GLR/generalized/ here?
I see your point. However, this blurb is sort of like a short ad for
Bison. If we write the following, I'm afraid people won't recognize
that
Bison can generate GLR parsers:
Generate a deterministic or generalized parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.
This might be better:
Generate a deterministic or generalized LR parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.
And this seems clearest though most repetitive:
Generate a deterministic LR or GLR parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.
Also, it occurs to me that most people have no idea what IELR is, so
maybe
we should say "minimal LR" in parentheses or instead. I don't know.
What do you think?
I regret that we don't explicit the "generalized" word, but I see your
point too. Yet I would say that if the reader is not expected to
understand "generalized", he will probably not understand "canonical"
either.
We may also escape the LR repetition with "generate a deterministic or
generalized shift/reduce parser employing LALR(1), IELR(1) or LR(1)
parser tables".
