Joel,
On the subject of new features. I have just been bitten (again)
by not being able to execute any actions in when multiple parse
stacks are in existence. Having a way of specifying a non-deferred
action would solve a recurring problem of mine.
I'm envisioning the conflict actions we discu
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Derek M Jones wrote:
>
> > On the subject of new features. I have just been bitten (again)
> > by not being able to execute any actions in when multiple parse
> > stacks are in existence. Having a way of specifying a non-deferred
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Derek M Jones wrote:
> On the subject of new features. I have just been bitten (again)
> by not being able to execute any actions in when multiple parse
> stacks are in existence. Having a way of specifying a non-deferred
> action would solve a recurring problem of mine.
I'
Joel,
One possible solution would be to allow the grammar writer to
specify weights for a particular reduction. When a conflict
occurred the one with the greatest weight would be chosen.
A conflict action (which we proposed earlier) could be encoded with these
weights so it could choose a re
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Satya Kiran wrote:
> Sorry for a small digression, but are we moving toward implementing
> probablistic CFGs in bison? or is my understanding very oblique..
> thanks!
So far, I think we're just talking about how a Bison user might implement
this (and other things) himself us
Sorry for a small digression, but are we moving toward implementing
probablistic CFGs in bison? or is my understanding very oblique..
thanks!
./satya
On 5/19/06, Joel E. Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Derek M Jones wrote:
> likely; as least I think so until my figures sh
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Derek M Jones wrote:
> likely; as least I think so until my figures show otherwise;
> which they cannot until I have have access to both parse
> trees when an ambiguity occurs).
If you construct parse trees (a parse forest really) in your semantic
actions, you will have acce
Joel,
> In the meantime, it might be worthwhile to work out the exact
> functionality you envision by discussing it on this list. Once you (or
> someone else who gets interested) is ready to write it, it will then
stand
> a better chance of being accepted -- and being accepted without an
> ext
