Re: extra lookahead sets in report

[Joel E. Denny]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Akim Demaille wrote:

> You don't need to, it's obvious.  But what's not obvious is
> what exactly is incorrect.  Your comments seem to imply that
> Bison is correct in its implementation of the "incorrect"
> algorithm it uses, therefore, albeit incorrect, the result
> is faithful.  So I would just keep it, unless it's only
> misleading.

Is the following any clearer?

  Within a single state, Bison used to print a reduction's lookahead set
  next to all items that were associated with the same rule as the
  reduction.  However, that lookahead set is actually only guaranteed to
  be valid for the one such item that also has its dot is at the end of
  its RHS.