Re: bison shift/reduce conflict

[Martin Pala]

Christian Hopp wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Martin Pala wrote:
>
> > Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> >
> > > Jan-Henrik Haukeland <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > There are other choices, if you remove the /* EMPTY */ production
> > > >
> > > > from time and from action the conflict is solved
> > >
> > > Actually, it's enough to remove the /* EMPTY */ production from
> > > action, maybe it's the simplest thing to do? I think that's going to
> > > get my +1.
> > I'm +1 too, so time and/or action will be required.
>
> Or we define an action statement like,
>
> TIMESTAMP /foo/bar > 5 seconds ACTION alert.
>
> That would solve the shift problem => we would change all "action" related
> statements... like resouce.
>
> Christian
It could be good solution and in the case that we don't break backward 
compatibility, i would preffer it (to add ACTION statement to the 
grammar and correct documentation). However i think it can affect 
upgrade from 3.0->3.1 so maybe we should just avoid EMPTY (default 
value). What about it? Shall we add ACTION or remove EMPTY from time?

Martin