Re: Exceeded limits of %dprec/%merge?

[Derek M Jones]

Joel,

> time using static precedence instead.  However, static precedence is made 
> for shift-reduce conflicts, so you'll need to convert your reduce-reduce 
> to shift-reduce.

I might give this a go just to play with the new, to me anyway,
functionality below.  I can change the grammar slightly to make the
problem go away without using this technique.

> Try something like this in the definitions section:
>
>   %nonassoc IDENT
>   %nonassoc PREC
>
> Add this rule:
>
>   prec: %prec PREC { } ;
>
> Now, before every IDENT, place more occurrences of prec to increase the 
> precedence of that rule.  This:
>
>   direct_declarator:
>                prec prec IDENT

Wow, seems that my knowledge of Bison functionality is way out
of date.  I have not read the complete manual for years, looks
like I should reread it.

Thanks for this excellent description of the functionality.

> Does that help?

I was hoping to dynamically catch all the ambiguities so they
could be counted and analyzed in more detail (I plan to turn
all by %dprecs into %merge).

Thanks for looking at the problem.  I will probably stick with
my slight grammar change solution for the time being.

--
Derek M. Jones                              tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667
Knowledge Software Ltd                      mailto:address@hidden
Applications Standards Conformance Testing    http://www.knosof.co.uk