Use "look-ahead" instead of "lookahead", consistently.

doc/bison.texinfo

@@ -5187,13 +5187,13 @@ return_spec:
 
 Bison produces @emph{deterministic} parsers that choose uniquely
 when to reduce and which reduction to apply
-based on a summary of the preceding input and on one extra token of lookahead.
+based on a summary of the preceding input and on one extra token of look-ahead.
 As a result, normal Bison handles a proper subset of the family of
 context-free languages.
 Ambiguous grammars, since they have strings with more than one possible
 sequence of reductions cannot have deterministic parsers in this sense.
 The same is true of languages that require more than one symbol of
-lookahead, since the parser lacks the information necessary to make a
+look-ahead, since the parser lacks the information necessary to make a
 decision at the point it must be made in a shift-reduce parser.
 Finally, as previously mentioned (@pxref{Mystery Conflicts}),
 there are languages where Bison's particular choice of how to
@@ -5805,16 +5805,16 @@ beginning of the parsing, in the initial rule, right before the start
 symbol (here, @code{exp}).  When the parser returns to this state right
 after having reduced a rule that produced an @code{exp}, the control
 flow jumps to state 2.  If there is no such transition on a nonterminal
-symbol, and the lookahead is a @code{NUM}, then this token is shifted on
+symbol, and the look-ahead is a @code{NUM}, then this token is shifted on
 the parse stack, and the control flow jumps to state 1.  Any other
-lookahead triggers a syntax error.''
+look-ahead triggers a syntax error.''
 
 @cindex core, item set
 @cindex item set core
 @cindex kernel, item set
 @cindex item set core
 Even though the only active rule in state 0 seems to be rule 0, the
-report lists @code{NUM} as a lookahead symbol because @code{NUM} can be
+report lists @code{NUM} as a look-ahead token because @code{NUM} can be
 at the beginning of any rule deriving an @code{exp}.  By default Bison
 reports the so-called @dfn{core} or @dfn{kernel} of the item set, but if
 you want to see more detail you can invoke @command{bison} with
@@ -5848,7 +5848,7 @@ state 1
 @end example
 
 @noindent
-the rule 5, @samp{exp: NUM;}, is completed.  Whatever the lookahead
+the rule 5, @samp{exp: NUM;}, is completed.  Whatever the look-ahead token
 (@samp{$default}), the parser will reduce it.  If it was coming from
 state 0, then, after this reduction it will return to state 0, and will
 jump to state 2 (@samp{exp: go to state 2}).
@@ -5871,7 +5871,7 @@ state 2
 
 @noindent
 In state 2, the automaton can only shift a symbol.  For instance,
-because of the item @samp{exp -> exp . '+' exp}, if the lookahead if
+because of the item @samp{exp -> exp . '+' exp}, if the look-ahead if
 @samp{+}, it will be shifted on the parse stack, and the automaton
 control will jump to state 4, corresponding to the item @samp{exp -> exp
 '+' . exp}.  Since there is no default action, any other token than
@@ -5948,7 +5948,7 @@ state 8
     $default    reduce using rule 1 (exp)
 @end example
 
-Indeed, there are two actions associated to the lookahead @samp{/}:
+Indeed, there are two actions associated to the look-ahead @samp{/}:
 either shifting (and going to state 7), or reducing rule 1.  The
 conflict means that either the grammar is ambiguous, or the parser lacks
 information to make the right decision.  Indeed the grammar is
@@ -5966,14 +5966,14 @@ Note that all the previous states had a single possible action: either
 shifting the next token and going to the corresponding state, or
 reducing a single rule.  In the other cases, i.e., when shifting
 @emph{and} reducing is possible or when @emph{several} reductions are
-possible, the lookahead is required to select the action.  State 8 is
-one such state: if the lookahead is @samp{*} or @samp{/} then the action
+possible, the look-ahead is required to select the action.  State 8 is
+one such state: if the look-ahead is @samp{*} or @samp{/} then the action
 is shifting, otherwise the action is reducing rule 1.  In other words,
 the first two items, corresponding to rule 1, are not eligible when the
-lookahead is @samp{*}, since we specified that @samp{*} has higher
-precedence that @samp{+}.  More generally, some items are eligible only
-with some set of possible lookaheads.  When run with
-@option{--report=lookahead}, Bison specifies these lookaheads:
+look-ahead token is @samp{*}, since we specified that @samp{*} has higher
+precedence than @samp{+}.  More generally, some items are eligible only
+with some set of possible look-ahead tokens.  When run with
+@option{--report=look-ahead}, Bison specifies these look-ahead tokens:
 
 @example
 state 8
@@ -6319,9 +6319,9 @@ separated list of @var{things} among:
 Description of the grammar, conflicts (resolved and unresolved), and
 @acronym{LALR} automaton.
 
-@item lookahead
+@item look-ahead
 Implies @code{state} and augments the description of the automaton with
-each rule's lookahead set.
+each rule's look-ahead set.
 
 @item itemset
 Implies @code{state} and augments the description of the automaton with