On Fri, May 18, 2007 12:03 pm, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> > Looks like we have a precedence bug in the parser rules there.
>> > Fortunately it's quite easy to fix, for example writing the rules
>> as:
>> >
>> > |'+'
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > Looks like we have a precedence bug in the parser rules there.
> > Fortunately it's quite easy to fix, for example writing the rules as:
> >
> > |'+' expr %prec T_INC
> > |'-' expr %prec T_INC
> >
> > seem
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Looks like we have a precedence bug in the parser rules there.
> Fortunately it's quite easy to fix, for example writing the rules as:
>
> |'+' expr %prec T_INC
> |'-' expr %prec T_INC
>
> seems to work. Any reason not to?
I think this should go in. I
