|
From: | Fiordean Dacian |
Subject: | handle shift/reduce conflict (using prec directive) |
Date: | Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:12:00 +0200 |
> Hi group,
> > I'm back again with a 'silly' problem... -:) > > I do have a grammer like the following: > > shared_loop_expr > : KW_LOOP KW_BEGIN=20 > { > } > msc_body=20 > { > } > KW_ENDLOOP end > { > } > ; > > This generates a shift/reduce conflict since when Bizon create the state = > for the=20 > > KW_LOOP end > > rule, it choses to reduce it with the > > : KW_LOOP KW_BEGIN=20 > > This is the content of the verbose file: > > state 202 > > shared_loop_expr -> KW_LOOP KW_BEGIN=20 > > KW_LOOP shift, and go to state 21 > > ....... > > KW_LOOP [reduce using rule 37 (msc_body)] > > $default reduce using rule 11 (possible_name) > > > > I would like for the the 2nd KW_LOOP also a shift operation instead of = > reduce. I've tried defining 2 right operators > > %right OP1 > %right OP2 > > and associate them with my rule respectively rule 37 mentioned in the = > verbose file. I've changed their declaration order for priority, and I = > get the same results. > > Could anybody give a sugestion what I'm doing wrong here? > > Thanks, > // D. |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |