Re: incorrect yychar for unambiguous GLR

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Paul Hilfinger wrote:

>  > 1. I've documented the use of YYEOF, yylval, and yylloc in semantic 
>  > actions.  Was this intentionally omitted before?  Why?
> 
> Nah, just never got around to it, I guess.

That's the answer I was hoping for.

>  > +During deterministic @acronym{GLR} operation, the effect of 
> @code{YYERROR} is
>  > +similar to its effect in an @acronym{LALR}(1) parser.
> 
> It would be better to say "the same as" or "identical to" rather than
> "similar to", because any deviations are unintentional (i.e., bugs).

I'll go with `the same as'.

>  > +In a deferred semantic action, its effect is currently not well tested.
>  > address@hidden The effect is probably a syntax error at the split point.
>  > +
> 
> Let's say instead 
> 
>    In a deferred semantic action, its effect is undefined.

I was trying to leave the door open for others to pursue this feature 
because, even though it doesn't interest me, it might be reasonable.  But 
`undefined' seems accurate.  OK to leave the comment?

>    In a deferred semantic action, its effect is undefined.
>
>  > +Note that it is also possible to access the semantic value of the 
> look-ahead
>  > +token, if any, from a semantic action.
>  > +This semantic value is stored in @code{yylval}.
>
> OK, call me picky, but I *REALLY* dislike the phrase "note that", and
> would prefer
>
>    Within a semantic action, the semantic value of the look-ahead
>    token, if any, is available in @code{yylval}.
>
> 
>  > +Note that it is also possible to access the location of the look-ahead 
> token
>  > +if any, from a semantic action.
>  > +This location is stored in @code{yylloc}.
>
> Likewise,
> 
>    Within a semantic action, the location of the look-ahead
>    token, if any, is available in @code{yylloc}.

I'm happy to drop `Note that', which seems redundant.  Other than that, I 
prefer my wording because `it is also' creates a smoother transition from 
the previous paragraphs.  Is that OK?

Thanks.

Joel