Re: [PATCH 3/4] intl: fix conflicts instead of accepting them

[Bruno Haible]

Hi Akim,

Akim Demaille wrote:
> The seven conflicts are related to "a ? b : c <op> d".  In all the
> cases we left the S/R conflict be resolved as a shift, i.e., "a ? b
> : (c <op> d)".  To make this explicit, give the rule of the ternary
> operator a very low precedence.  In fact give it the same precedence
> as "?".  Now, to resolve the conflict in "a ? b : c ? d : e" be parsed
> as "a ? b : (c ? d : e)", make them right-associative.
> 
> * gettext-runtime/intl/plural.y: Require Bison 3.0, to use %precedence
> instead of useless associativities such as %right.
> Make '?' and ':' of the same precedence, right associative.

Thanks for this! The last time I analyzed this set of conflicts, about
20 years ago, I did not find a way to get rid of them, and it was common
practice at the time to let conflicts stay around if bison chose the
proper resolution to them.

I wasn't aware of all the new facilities in Bison, and am very grateful
that you brought this grammar into modern style!

Applied.

Bruno