On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:24:52AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
[snip]
> > I really thought our conflicts
> > were somewhere else. Specifically I thought the problem was that we
> > need
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:07:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled:
> >
> > > First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion,
> > > despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in
> > > the same order as in the so
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:49:09AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled:
> >
> > >> And even without glr-parser, I'm still uncomfortable with the
> > >> lexer<->parser execution ordering issues with the current
> > >> /dts-version/ proposal. It may now b
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:41:51PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive
> >>> stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more
> >>> conflicts, no need for the GLR parser, and friendlier stackness.
> >>
> >> Ouch.
So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled:
>
> > First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion,
> > despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in
> > the same order as in the source. I think that behaviour is worth
> > preserving, but of course we
So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled:
>
> >> And even without glr-parser, I'm still uncomfortable with the
> >> lexer<->parser execution ordering issues with the current
> >> /dts-version/ proposal. It may now be true that the order is
> >> guaranteed to be correct, but it's still n
>>> Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive
>>> stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more
>>> conflicts, no need for the GLR parser, and friendlier stackness.
>>
>> Ouch. I'm feeling a bit stupid now,
>
> Absolutely no need for that.
If you haven't
So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> > Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce
> > errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular
> > GLR Parser technique.
>
> I haven't actually hea
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce
> errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular
> GLR Parser technique.
I haven't actually heard anyone whinge about glr-parser...
> Flip a right-recur
Previously, there were a few shift/reduce and reduce/reduce
errors in the grammar that were being handled by the not-so-popular
GLR Parser technique.
Flip a right-recursive stack-abusing rule into a left-recursive
stack-friendly rule and clear up three messes in one shot: No more
conflicts, no nee
10 matches
Mail list logo