Hi! > Le 22 nov. 2018 à 05:33, Lawrence Murray <lawre...@indii.org> a écrit : > > Hi Akim, > > Thanks for the response, and for all your work on Bison!
Thanks for saying that :) >> Sorry, I discovered this recently too, see >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2018-11/msg00042.html. I >> don’t know whether that means I should release a 3.2.2. WDYT? > > Looks like you've just got a 3.2.2 out, so I guess the fix is there? Yup. > Yes, indeed, we use it for the parser of the Birch probabilistic programming > language (birch-lang.org). We started with the basic LALR(1) parser, but as > the language has developed, a GLR parser has become necessary for our chosen > syntax. That’s good to know. I really need feedback on GLR on the large. I’m involved in a project which uses glr.cc, but it only feature two S/R conflicts… > I'll have a better look at these proposals later, but yes, in general, it > would be nice to be able to specify precisely where the conflicts are > expected, rather than just the total number expected. When using %expect > declarations, I find myself writing explanations as to where these conflicts > are (see e.g. lines 84-91 here: > https://github.com/lawmurray/Birch/blob/model/bi/parser.ypp), and it would be > preferable for these to be formalised. Good!
