Derek M Jones wrote:
>
> Don't forget that your parser has to operate with a single token of
> look-ahead. You think it is similar because you are taking a global
> view (the two grammars do specify very similar token sequences).
>
> Try to think in terms of a push down automata that has to decide what
> to do given its current state and the next token. In the case of
> the C++ grammar there are no shift/reduce decision conflicts (I'm
> assuming you copied it correctly).
>
Thanks. I understand what you're saying about the look-ahead token and how
the parser always just chooses between shifting and reducing. I've also
looked at the output file. However I still don't know how to fix it so that
there'd be no conflict. I'll probably try looking at more examples.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/shift-reduce-conflict-with-unary-tf4303942.html#a12269989
Sent from the Gnu - Bison - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
