Joel,
time using static precedence instead. However, static precedence is made for shift-reduce conflicts, so you'll need to convert your reduce-reduce to shift-reduce.
I might give this a go just to play with the new, to me anyway, functionality below. I can change the grammar slightly to make the problem go away without using this technique.
Try something like this in the definitions section: %nonassoc IDENT %nonassoc PREC Add this rule: prec: %prec PREC { } ;Now, before every IDENT, place more occurrences of prec to increase the precedence of that rule. This:direct_declarator: prec prec IDENT
Wow, seems that my knowledge of Bison functionality is way out of date. I have not read the complete manual for years, looks like I should reread it. Thanks for this excellent description of the functionality. > Does that help? I was hoping to dynamically catch all the ambiguities so they could be counted and analyzed in more detail (I plan to turn all by %dprecs into %merge). Thanks for looking at the problem. I will probably stick with my slight grammar change solution for the time being. -- Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk _______________________________________________ help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
