| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: help with bison |
| Date: | 2002-04-11 02:44:13 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0204111242200.22655-100000@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Bear Giles wrote:
> > In fact, my grammar currently has an obscene
> > 20 shift/reduce and 4 reduce/reduce conflicts!
>
> A shift/reduce conflict, IIRC, usually indicates a situation where
> the grammar is unambiguous but may be inefficient. Eliminating them
> is nice, but not critical.
This is not correct. A shift/reduce conflict is where the grammar is
ambiguous.
>
> A R/R conflict, in contrast, is a point where the grammar is ambiguous
> and you *must* fix it.
A reduce/reduce conflict is where there is more than one rule which could
be used for the reduction of the grammar.
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-11 02:54:14 | Re: help with bison |
| Previous Message | Bear Giles | 2002-04-11 02:20:12 | Re: help with bison |