mirror of
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/bison.git
synced 2026-03-17 00:03:03 +00:00
* src/print.c (state_default_rule_compute): New, extracted from...
(print_reductions): here. Pessimize, but clarify the code. * tests/conflicts.at (Defaulted Conflicted Reduction): New.
This commit is contained in:
24
TODO
24
TODO
@@ -3,6 +3,16 @@
|
||||
* URGENT: Documenting C++ output
|
||||
Write a first documentation for C++ output.
|
||||
|
||||
* Report and GLR
|
||||
How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions? In particular,
|
||||
what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead, but one is
|
||||
part of $default. Should we make the two reductions explicit, or just
|
||||
keep $default? See the following point.
|
||||
|
||||
* Report and Disabled Reductions
|
||||
See `tests/conflicts.at (Defaulted Conflicted Reduction)', and decide
|
||||
what we want to do.
|
||||
|
||||
* value_components_used
|
||||
Was defined but not used: where was it coming from? It can't be to
|
||||
check if %union is used, since the user is free to $<foo>n on her
|
||||
@@ -16,7 +26,9 @@ to #define yyerror and yyprint to steal internal variables...
|
||||
* documentation
|
||||
Explain $axiom (and maybe change its name: BTYacc names it `goal',
|
||||
byacc `$accept' probably based on AT&T Yacc, Meta `Start'...).
|
||||
Complete the glossary (item, axiom, ?).
|
||||
Complete the glossary (item, axiom, ?). Should we also rename `$'?
|
||||
BYacc uses `$end'. `$eof' is attracting, but after all we may be
|
||||
parsing a string, a stream etc.
|
||||
|
||||
* Error messages
|
||||
Some are really funky. For instance
|
||||
@@ -26,11 +38,11 @@ Some are really funky. For instance
|
||||
is really weird. Revisit them all.
|
||||
|
||||
* Report documentation
|
||||
Extend with error. The hard part will probably be finding the right
|
||||
rule so that a single state does not exhibit to many yet undocumented
|
||||
``features''. Maybe an empty action ought to be presented too. Shall
|
||||
we try to make a single grammar with all these features, or should we
|
||||
have several very small grammars?
|
||||
Extend with error productions. The hard part will probably be finding
|
||||
the right rule so that a single state does not exhibit too many yet
|
||||
undocumented ``features''. Maybe an empty action ought to be
|
||||
presented too. Shall we try to make a single grammar with all these
|
||||
features, or should we have several very small grammars?
|
||||
|
||||
* Documentation
|
||||
Some history of Bison and some bibliography would be most welcome.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user