|Question on %nonassoc-directive in LALR(1) parser generators email@example.com (2008-09-26)|
|Re: Question on %nonassoc-directive in LALR(1) parser generators firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com) (2008-09-27)|
|Re: Question on %nonassoc-directive in LALR(1) parser generators cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-09-27)|
|Re: Question on %nonassoc-directive in LALR(1) parser generators firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris Dollin) (2008-09-29)|
|Date:||Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:51:07 +0200|
|Posted-Date:||27 Sep 2008 12:26:12 EDT|
> [Holub's book had a stupendous number of mistakes. Have you looked at
> the 50 page errata sheet? Google for "holub compiler design", click the
> documentation link for a PDF that is mostly errata. -John]
Yes I took a look at this errata sheet, but there is no comment on this
I also made a mistake on the table myself in my first mail, Holub
defines his resolvement table as
Associativity of conflict symbol | Perform
Left-associative | reduce
Right-associative | shift
Non-associative | shift
but his generator constructs a reduce when a token is not associative.
Maybe he did some more mistakes that are not discovered yet?
I'm feel a little bit embarrassed on this problem, what is right and
what is wrong. What is now the correct way now? And why do two different
generators handle %nonassoc'ed terminals not the same way as yacc?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.