From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4fd338e56f592cfb
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.215.194 with SMTP id hf2mr19914429qab.0.1367621827927;
        Fri, 03 May 2013 15:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 y6ni5623qax.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.snarked.org!us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: LALR parser question
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:57:04 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <km1fc3$jjm$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <85sj2aydwi.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <klsgo4$pfl$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <85zjwc8khm.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1367621827 20086 69.95.181.76 (3 May 2013 22:57:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 22:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2013-05-03T17:57:04-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:85zjwc8khm.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
...
> I'm fixing OpenToken; I'm asking if the OpenToken behavior for choice 1
> is a bug. You have not directly addressed that, but thanks for letting
> me know someone is using LALR in a commercial product!

Our grammar goes further than yours as it attempts to insert pragmas at 
appropriate places. For your purposes, you could globally replace 
pragma_option by nothing at all and I believe you would get the same 
results. (I certainly can't see how you would get an additional conflict by 
removing some syntax.) If you did that, you would get a grammar that looked 
very similar to the one you originally had as Choice 1. At least that was my 
thought process.

One thing that is very important if to ensure that the empty production only 
appears in one level of your grammar; if not, you'll end up with a conflict 
because it won't be possible to tell which empty production to reduce. 
That's why we have the strangeness of a "program_option".

                                                     Randy.