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

[Akim Demaille]

> > Agreed.  But it seems more consistent to ignore the failures, and
> > therefore to stick to the first declaration.
>
> By "ignore the failures", do you mean make it a warning rather than an
> error?  Or do you just mean that Bison should always refer back to the
> first declaration in its error messages?

Yes, I meant an error, but stick to the first definitions (i.e., ignore
the following ones).

> > 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.
>
> That's what it *says*, but that's not what it does.  The line  
> number of
> the "first" declaration increases with each new error message.  I just
> checked Bison 2.3 for %type.

Arg, sorry.  Then do what you think is most convenient.

> > We should stick to this scheme for consistency.  That's also what
> > the compilers I know do (gcc uses the word "previous" though :)
>
> :)  I guess "previous" is ambiguous.

They make this even "worse" by saying "a previous definition".

foo.cc:2: error: conflicting declaration 'void* foo'
foo.cc:1: error: 'foo' has a previous declaration as 'int foo'


> "first" is probably also ambiguous
> but seemed like the worse choice given what Bison was actually  
> reporting.
>
> So, you prefer Bison to report the actual first declaration in the  
> grammar
> file and to say "first", right?

That's my preference, but whatever consistant choice is OK with me.
I thought that scheme was implemented.