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

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:

> Le 21 avr. 09 ? 21:05, Joel E. Denny a ?crit :
> 
> > > > +  /* 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"?

"states that have any reductions" and "states that have reductions" have 
the same literal meaning to me, but the "any" puts emphasis on the 
importance of even a single reduction being present no matter what that 
reduction is.  (I'm not sure why I bothered in this case though.)

The singular and plural forms have different connotations to me.  For 
example, I would say "a car rolling down the road without any driver" 
because I would normally expect at most one driver.  But I might say "a 
plane in the air without any pilots" because some planes have multiple 
pilots at the same time.

Anyway, I've removed the phrase altogether.

> > 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 :)

Ok, I'll try.  :)