Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration

[Akim Demaille]

> In the case of symbol redeclarations, Bison was reporting the  
> location of
> the previous declaration but calling it the first declaration.   
> Since it's
> an error, I don't see why it matters which it does as long as it  
> uses the
> right word.

Agreed.  But it seems more consistent to ignore the failures, and
therefore to stick to the first declaration.  I didn't know it had
this behavior, thanks for stating.  In other places (%type, %printer
etc.) it ignores following definitions and sticks to the first one.
We should stick to this scheme for consistency.  That's also what
the compilers I know do (gcc uses the word "previous" though :)

> In the case of merger result type clashes, I changed it to match what
> Bison was doing for symbol redeclarations.  I'm not sure why this is a
> warning and not an error.
>
> What would you like to have happen?

I'd say this is an error, and we should stick to definition #1.