[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: <reductions>
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: <reductions> |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:05:18 +0200 |
Le 30 sept. 07 à 01:11, Joel E. Denny a écrit :
The XML output has two different elements named "reductions". One
reports
reduce actions in the sense of productions performed by a bottom-up
I guess you meant actions, or is this a meaning of
production I don't know?
parser. The other reports useless/unused symbols and rules that
are found
by the grammar reductions of reduce.c.
Perhaps we can choose a better name for the latter case.
"grammar_reductions", "redundancies", any other suggestions?
Maye "simplifications" is too general, but it may fit.
Or perhaps
the "useless" and "unused" elements don't need to be grouped together
inside a parent element. There's only one of each anyway. Here's an
example from Wojciech's web page:
<reductions>
<useless>
<nonterminals>
<nonterminal>useless</nonterminal>
</nonterminals>
<rules>
I'm a bit surprised by the order that was chosen: it seems
more logical (to me) to start with the various categories
(nterm, rule, term) and inside each group to report useless,
unused etc. WDYT?
<rule number="6">
<lhs>useless</lhs>
<rhs>
<symbol class="terminal">STR</symbol>
</rhs>
</rule>
Should we really repeat the rules then? Its number suffice:
the grammar is defined elsewhere. BTW, maybe the grammar should
be defined first, and then the rest of the information. The
order should be chosen to please tools, not humans.
</rules>
</useless>
<unused>
<terminals>
<terminal>STR</terminal>
</terminals>
</unused>
</reductions>
What do you think?
- <reductions>, Joel E. Denny, 2007/09/29
- Re: <reductions>,
Akim Demaille <=