Re: [PATCH] Document %define lr.type and lr.default_rules.

[Joel E. Denny]

Hi Akim,

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:

> Le 21 avr. 09 ? 12:32, Joel E. Denny a ?crit :
> 
> > +Generate a deterministic or GLR parser employing LALR(1), IELR(1), or\n\
> > +canonical LR(1) parser tables.\n\
> 
> Why not ascending order?

I'm not sure what you mean.

> And shouldn't we s/GLR/generalized/ here?

I see your point.  However, this blurb is sort of like a short ad for 
Bison.  If we write the following, I'm afraid people won't recognize that 
Bison can generate GLR parsers:

  Generate a deterministic or generalized parser employing LALR(1), 
  IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.

This might be better:

  Generate a deterministic or generalized LR parser employing LALR(1),
  IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.

And this seems clearest though most repetitive:

  Generate a deterministic LR or GLR parser employing LALR(1),
  IELR(1), or canonical LR(1) parser tables.

Also, it occurs to me that most people have no idea what IELR is, so maybe 
we should say "minimal LR" in parentheses or instead.  I don't know.

What do you think?

As a note to myself, whatever changes we make here should also be made in 
the Bison manual.