[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Implement %define lr.default_rules.

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement %define lr.default_rules.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:44:19 +0200

Le 21 avr. 09 à 21:05, Joel E. Denny a écrit :

+  /* We need a lookahead either to distinguish different reductions
+ (i.e., there are two or more), or to distinguish a reduction from a
+     shift.  Otherwise, it is straightforward, and the state is
+ `consistent'. However, for states that have any rules, treat only

I don't understand "states that have any rules".

It's been a couple of years since I wrote that, but I believe I was trying
to be consistent with "default rules".  I agree it's ugly for many
reasons.  I will change it to "states that have any reductions".

I'm still (because I'm not a native I guess) uneasy with "any + plural". Is it the same as saying "that have any reduction", or "have reductions"?

After seeing your and Eric's helpful reviews of this patch, I feel bad
about pushing so many major patches at once.  I didn't expect the
immediate response, and I felt I had held on to IELR for too long already.

Which is indeed what happened. Being rigorous on the repository is the goal, but heck, checkins are not releases, cut yourself some slack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]