Indeed! Even documented, this seems like way too many reduce/reduce
conflicts---we should be able to refactor the grammar to avoid them.
On Wed Dec 03 2014 at 3:59:48 AM Simon Marlow
reduce/reduce conflicts are bad, especially so since they're undocumented. We don't know whether this introduced parser bugs or not. Mike - could you look at this please? It was your commit that introduced the new conflicts.
Cheers, Simon
On 02/12/2014 10:19, Dr. ERDI Gergo wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
In unrelated work, I saw this scroll across when happy'ing the parser:
shift/reduce conflicts: 60 reduce/reduce conflicts: 16
These numbers seem quite a bit higher than what I last remember (which is something like 48 and 1, not 60 and 16). Does anyone know why?
The offending commit is bc2289e13d9586be087bd8136943dc35a0130c88. I know this because I was changing the parser for patsyn signatures, and so I updated the numbers in Parser.y to make sure I'm not adding any new conflicts:
25 June 2014
Conflicts: 47 shift/reduce 1 reduce/reduce
but then when time came to rebase my changes before pushing, I noticed that it has gone up, and I had to update it yet again in Parser.y:
20 Nov 2014
Conflicts: 60 shift/reduce 12 reduce/reduce
So anyway, the point is, if you try bc2289e and bc2289e^ you can see that that is the commit that introduced these new conflicts. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs