At 01:10 -0500 2005/03/11, Alfonso Urdaneta wrote:
>> No, there is no such Bison design doc's: Only reading the Bison source code
>> itself. (Apart from that somebody wrote something in Spanish, I think.)
>
>link ?
It was a Spanish fellow "CJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writing a thesis on his
tutor's D
No, there is no such Bison design doc's: Only reading the Bison source code
itself. (Apart from that somebody wrote something in Spanish, I think.)
link ?
--
alfonso e. urdaneta
www.red82.com - are you ready ?
___
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/m
For the grammar:
%token YYID YYDOT
%%
identifier : hier_id
;
hier_id : simple_id
| hier_id opt_select YYDOT simple_id
;
opt_select :
| opt_select '[' expr ']'
;
simple_id : YYID ;
expr : hier_id
| function_call
;
function_call : expr YYDOT Y
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19.50, Hans Aberg wrote:
> Please keep the cc to help-bison so that others may help.
could you restate your problem ?
___
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
Please keep the cc to help-bison so that others may help.
On 2005/03/02 00:38, Soumitra Kumar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for your comment.
> I thought there may be a way to get this information
> from --trace option, that's why I posted on help-bison
> list.
The question is how.
> I h
At 12:46 -0800 2005/02/28, Soumitra Kumar wrote:
>Following is a sample grammar. There is one r/r
>conflict.
>
>% cat test.y
>%token YYID YYDOT
>%%
>identifier : hier_id
>;
>hier_id : simple_id
>| hier_id opt_select YYDOT simple_id
>;
>opt_select :
>| opt_select '['
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 19.02, Soumitra Kumar wrote:
> Henrik,
> So, if I get the following output (rule no after a
> lookahead symbol), finding the ambiguous rules is
> trivial.
well, in the output file you can search for all the states that have a goto
your state 10.
_
Henrik,
I understand that grammar is ambiguous.
In case of big grammars, it gets difficult to find out
the rules causing the conflicts.
While creating the lookahead set, if bison can
annotate the rules too, it would be helpful.
So, if I get the following output (rule no after a
lookahead symbol)
Your grammar is ambigious.
It can be seen if you make the following transformation, factoring out the
null transition of opt_select, and you will see the shift/reduce conflict:
%token YYID YYDOT
%%
identifier : hier_id;
hier_id : simple_id
| hier_id YYDOT simple_id
| hier_id opt_select YYDOT simp
Following is a sample grammar. There is one r/r
conflict.
% cat test.y
%token YYID YYDOT
%%
identifier : hier_id
;
hier_id : simple_id
| hier_id opt_select YYDOT simple_id
;
opt_select :
| opt_select '[' expr ']'
;
simple_id : YYID ;
expr : hier_id
10 matches
Mail list logo
