Hi,

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 01:47:31PM -0800, Michael Vanier wrote:

> I've looked at the revised syntax, and I like most of what I see (except
> for the use of x.val instead of !x).  One question: how many shift-reduce
> conflicts does the revised syntax have?  

There is no notion of shift-reduce in recursive descent parsing: the
system tries to shift until it cannot do it any more.

To decide to "reduce", you must know which non-terminal called you,
but you don't have this information, exactly like in a function, you
don't know which function called you.

To know if there are shift-reduce or reduce-reduce conflicts in the
revised syntax, one should rewrite it under yacc.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr