Re: [PATCH] Implement %define lr.default_rules.

[Akim Demaille]

Le 21 avr. 09 à 21:05, Joel E. Denny a écrit :

> > > +  /* We need a lookahead either to distinguish different reductions
> > > +     (i.e., there are two or more), or to distinguish a reduction  
> > > from a
> > > +     shift.  Otherwise, it is straightforward, and the state is
> > > +     `consistent'.  However, for states that have any rules,  
> > > treat only
> >
> > I don't understand "states that have any rules".
>
> It's been a couple of years since I wrote that, but I believe I was  
> trying
> to be consistent with "default rules".  I agree it's ugly for many
> reasons.  I will change it to "states that have any reductions".

I'm still (because I'm not a native I guess) uneasy with "any +  
plural".  Is it the same as saying "that have any reduction", or "have  
reductions"?

> After seeing your and Eric's helpful reviews of this patch, I feel bad
> about pushing so many major patches at once.  I didn't expect the
> immediate response, and I felt I had held on to IELR for too long  
> already.

Which is indeed what happened.  Being rigorous on the repository is  
the goal, but heck, checkins are not releases, cut yourself some  
slack :)