Hmm, does the left hand side of the IN in the FOR statement really take expressions, or does it only take identifier names? I ask because "for 3 in 4" sounds like a really strange loop :)
If it only takes identifiers then it will be easy to make the conflict go away. Pedro On Apr 16, 9:41 pm, Pavel Panchekha <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm currently having trouble getting the following pair of rules to > parse correctly: > > > expr : expr IN expr > > for_s : FOR many_exprs IN many_exprs block else > > In for_s, I test the first many_exprs to make sure that it is > something that can be assigned to. > > Where many_exprs is defined: > > > many_exprs : many_exprs ',' expr > > | expr > > The problem is that I have a shift reduce error due to the rules for > expr and for_s above, for_s loses. and for statements don't parse. Any > good fix for this? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ply-hack" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ply-hack?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
