: Re: more parser conflicts?
|
| On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:59:42 +
| Simon Marlow wrote:
|
| > >> In unrelated work, I saw this scroll across when happy'ing the
| parser:
| > >>
| > >>> shift/reduce conflicts: 60
| > >>> reduce/reduce conflic
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:19:34 +
Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:59:42 +
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > >> In unrelated work, I saw this scroll across when happy'ing the parser:
> > >>
> > >>> shift/reduce conflicts: 60
> > >>> reduce/reduce conflicts: 16
> > >>
> > >> Th
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:59:42 +
Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> In unrelated work, I saw this scroll across when happy'ing the parser:
> >>
> >>> shift/reduce conflicts: 60
> >>> reduce/reduce conflicts: 16
> >>
> >> These numbers seem quite a bit higher than what I last remember (which
> >> is some
Hi,
Am Montag, den 01.12.2014, 15:12 -0500 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> In unrelated work, I saw this scroll across when happy'ing the parser:
>
> > shift/reduce conflicts: 60
> > reduce/reduce conflicts: 16
>
> These numbers seem quite a bit higher than what I last remember (which is
> somet
Indeed! Even documented, this seems like way too many reduce/reduce
conflicts---we should be able to refactor the grammar to avoid them.
On Wed Dec 03 2014 at 3:59:48 AM Simon Marlow wrote:
> reduce/reduce conflicts are bad, especially so since they're
> undocumented. We don't know whether thi
reduce/reduce conflicts are bad, especially so since they're
undocumented. We don't know whether this introduced parser bugs or not.
Mike - could you look at this please? It was your commit that
introduced the new conflicts.
Cheers,
Simon
On 02/12/2014 10:19, Dr. ERDI Gergo wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
In unrelated work, I saw this scroll across when happy'ing the parser:
shift/reduce conflicts: 60
reduce/reduce conflicts: 16
These numbers seem quite a bit higher than what I last remember (which is
something like 48 and 1, not 60 and 16). Does
