So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce
errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular
GLR Parser technique.
I haven't actually heard
So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled:
First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion,
despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in
the same order as in the source. I think that behaviour is worth
preserving, but of course we can do
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:41:51PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive
stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more
conflicts, no need for the GLR parser, and friendlier stackness.
Ouch. I'm feeling a bit
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:49:09AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled:
And even without glr-parser, I'm still uncomfortable with the
lexer-parser execution ordering issues with the current
/dts-version/ proposal. It may now be true that the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:07:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled:
First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion,
despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in
the same order as in the source. I
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:24:52AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
[snip]
I really thought our conflicts
were somewhere else. Specifically I thought the problem was that we
needed to
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce
errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular
GLR Parser technique.
I haven't actually heard anyone whinge about glr-parser...
Flip a
