On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Derek M Jones wrote:
My point here is that the current functionality seems natural and necessary
for all GLR parsers. Do you disagree?
Either before or after is necessary. Both would be helpful.
I'm not sure the term 'natural' can be applied to a human
invention.
I see now that I wasn't being very careful with my language in that email.
Sorry for the confusion.
By `seems natural', I meant `seems natural to humans who work with GLR
parsers'. I wasn't actually referring to Nature, of course.
In place of `for all GLR parsers', I was really thinking `for all GLR
parsers that need to merge semantic values'. Clearly, there are other
ways to resolve ambiguities: syntax errors and %dprec.
I suppose the functionality you suggest could be used in conjunction with
any of these approaches to ambiguity resolution.
Joel
_______________________________________________
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
