|
From: | Akim Demaille |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implement %define lr.default_rules. |
Date: | Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:44:19 +0200 |
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 onlyI don't understand "states that have any rules".It's been a couple of years since I wrote that, but I believe I was tryingto 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 theimmediate 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 :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |