On Jan 21, 2008 3:02 PM, tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 09:30 -0600, Tom Browder wrote: > > Tim, digging into bison a little more, it seems that the problem is > > the use of precedence keywords is not compatible with assigning a > > token number. > > > > I believe the list of tokens has to be first and then list the > > precedence without the token number, e.g., > > > > %token BLAH 1 > > ... > > %token BLAHN 300 > > > > %nonassoc BLAH > > %nonassoc BLAHN > > > > I'll try that unless you think I'm going down a rabbit hole (it seems > > to work in my small test case). > > > > -Tom > > That looks OK. It used to work (putting token numbers on %left/%right/% > nonassoc), but bison has had a number of incompatible changes over past > years. > > The user code also now has to be M4-friendly, otherwise large slabs of > your code silently disappear or strange error messages appear, as I > found. > > The upcoming release also flags various (4) long-standing syntaxes as > deprecated eg %pure-parser. > > You used to be able to specify the token numbers on left/right/nonassoc. > Now you have to have a separate token declaration. As far as I can tell > the bison info file is not clear about this point. > > It might be difficult to get autogen to do this change for you though. > Most tokens are just tokens not left/right etc.
So far I've been able to get it to do it Ok (with a little help from Bruce). Now if I can just get past gperf (a dependency that I don't believe is mentioned anywhere). -Tom
