Le 21 avr. 09 à 21:05, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
+ /* We need a lookahead either to distinguish different reductions
+ (i.e., there are two or more), or to distinguish a reduction
from a
+ shift. Otherwise, it is straightforward, and the state is
+ `consistent'. However, for states that have any rules,
treat only
I don't understand "states that have any rules".
It's been a couple of years since I wrote that, but I believe I was
trying
to be consistent with "default rules". I agree it's ugly for many
reasons. I will change it to "states that have any reductions".
I'm still (because I'm not a native I guess) uneasy with "any +
plural". Is it the same as saying "that have any reduction", or "have
reductions"?
After seeing your and Eric's helpful reviews of this patch, I feel bad
about pushing so many major patches at once. I didn't expect the
immediate response, and I felt I had held on to IELR for too long
already.
Which is indeed what happened. Being rigorous on the repository is
the goal, but heck, checkins are not releases, cut yourself some
slack :)
