[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: <reductions>
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: <reductions> |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:21:25 -0400 (EDT) |
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > In fact, I might even suggest that
> > the grammar section itself annotates rules unused rules instead
> >
> > of using another separate sections.
> > Similarly, IMHO, there should be only one section about terminals
> > including both their description (name, number, "string" etc.),
> > whether they are unused, useless etc. I don't see the point of
> > separating them at the XML level.
> >
> > That would solve your "reduction" section naming problem, as
> > there would be no such section :)
>
> I agree with all those comments.
>
> What about something like the following? Under grammar, we could have
> rules/useless, rules/never-used, nonterminals/useless, and
That should be "never-reduced" instead of "never-used".
> terminals/unused. For example, for nonterminals:
Wojciech, what do you think of all of this? Here's the example I gave
before but revised a little:
<grammar>
...
<nonterminals>
<nonterminal number="9" name="$accept" />
<nonterminal number="10" name="exp" />
<useless>
<nonterminal name="x" />
<nonterminal name="y" />
</useless>
</nonterminals>
</grammar>
Or should "useless", "never-reduced", and "unused" be attributes instead?
- Re: <reductions>, (continued)
Re: <reductions>, Joel E. Denny, 2007/10/14
Re: <reductions>,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: <reductions>, Wojciech Polak, 2007/10/19
- Re: <reductions>, Joel E. Denny, 2007/10/19
- Re: <reductions>, Akim Demaille, 2007/10/23
- Re: <reductions>, Joel E. Denny, 2007/10/27
- Re: <reductions>, Akim Demaille, 2007/10/28
- Re: <reductions>, Joel E. Denny, 2007/10/28