Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration

[Joel E. Denny]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Akim Demaille wrote:

> I find it weird that we refer to the previous declaration.  Either
> we accept a single declaration, and therefore keep only the first
> active and complain about those which are not "first", or we accept
> redefinition, and we just don't complain.
>
> Since we do not accept redefinitions (and the places that were
> recently spotted are divergent from this scheme such as %define
> were considered bugged), I don't understand this patch.

In the case of symbol redeclarations, Bison was reporting the location of 
the previous declaration but calling it the first declaration.  Since it's 
an error, I don't see why it matters which it does as long as it uses the 
right word.

In the case of merger result type clashes, I changed it to match what 
Bison was doing for symbol redeclarations.  I'm not sure why this is a 
warning and not an error.

What would you like to have happen?

Joel