Re: <reductions>

[Akim Demaille]

Le 30 sept. 07 à 01:11, Joel E. Denny a écrit :

> The XML output has two different elements named "reductions".  One  
> reports
> reduce actions in the sense of productions performed by a bottom-up

I guess you meant actions, or is this a meaning of
production I don't know?

> parser.  The other reports useless/unused symbols and rules that  
> are found
> by the grammar reductions of reduce.c.
>
> Perhaps we can choose a better name for the latter case.
> "grammar_reductions", "redundancies", any other suggestions?

Maye "simplifications" is too general, but it may fit.

> Or perhaps
> the "useless" and "unused" elements don't need to be grouped together
> inside a parent element.  There's only one of each anyway.  Here's an
> example from Wojciech's web page:
>
>   <reductions>
>     <useless>
>       <nonterminals>
>         <nonterminal>useless</nonterminal>
>       </nonterminals>
>       <rules>

I'm a bit surprised by the order that was chosen: it seems
more logical (to me) to start with the various categories
(nterm, rule, term) and inside each group to report useless,
unused etc.  WDYT?

>         <rule number="6">
>           <lhs>useless</lhs>
>           <rhs>
>             <symbol class="terminal">STR</symbol>
>           </rhs>
>         </rule>

Should we really repeat the rules then?  Its number suffice:
the grammar is defined elsewhere.  BTW, maybe the grammar should
be defined first, and then the rest of the information.  The
order should be chosen to please tools, not humans.

>       </rules>
>     </useless>
>     <unused>
>       <terminals>
>         <terminal>STR</terminal>
>       </terminals>
>     </unused>
>   </reductions>
>
> What do you think?