Hi Akim,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:

Le 21 avr. 09 à 12:32, Joel E. Denny a écrit :

`+Generate a deterministic or GLR parser employing LALR(1),
``IELR(1), or\n\
`+canonical LR(1) parser tables.\n\

Why not ascending order?

I'm not sure what you mean.

And shouldn't we s/GLR/generalized/ here?

I see your point. However, this blurb is sort of like a short ad for

`Bison. If we write the following, I'm afraid people won't recognize
``that
`Bison can generate GLR parsers:
Generate a deterministic or generalized parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.
This might be better:
Generate a deterministic or generalized LR parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.
And this seems clearest though most repetitive:
Generate a deterministic LR or GLR parser employing LALR(1),
IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.

`Also, it occurs to me that most people have no idea what IELR is, so
``maybe
`we should say "minimal LR" in parentheses or instead. I don't know.
What do you think?