Hans Aberg writes:
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 11:15, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Hans Aberg writes:
>>
>>> Hi David!
>>>
>>> On 16 Sep 2012, at 10:51, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
But that's just guessing. Are there any hard or soft criteria about
when it may or may not be allowed to pull the
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:41, David Kastrup wrote:
> Hans Aberg writes:
>
>> Have you considered the GLR parser? If the correct parse depends on a
>> future lookahead, it will split and join when the correct parse is
>> used.
>
> But the correct parse does not depend on a future lookahead, but on a
On 17 Sep 2012, at 11:15, David Kastrup wrote:
> Hans Aberg writes:
>
>> Hi David!
>>
>> On 16 Sep 2012, at 10:51, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> But that's just guessing. Are there any hard or soft criteria about
>>> when it may or may not be allowed to pull the lookahead token out from
>>> und
Hans Aberg writes:
> Hi David!
>
> On 16 Sep 2012, at 10:51, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> But that's just guessing. Are there any hard or soft criteria about
>> when it may or may not be allowed to pull the lookahead token out from
>> under Bison and put something else there?
>
> You might look at
Hi David!
On 16 Sep 2012, at 10:51, David Kastrup wrote:
> But that's just guessing. Are there any hard or soft criteria about
> when it may or may not be allowed to pull the lookahead token out from
> under Bison and put something else there?
You might look at the push parser, which allows one
