Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i

[Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>]

> Date:         Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:26:10 -0300
> From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
> Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i

>>> (Even better if the first NUhU could be avoided.)
>>
>>   1 shift/reduce conflict
>
> Is it possible to identify when this happens? When a {gi} is found,
> the only possibility is that it is closing the latest open gek,
> isn't it? In other words, under what circumstances would the first
> nu'u not be elidable?

After some juggling I found a solution at the YACC level:

 --- in the rules for term_set_83 replace

       GEK_807 terms_80 GIK_816 NUhU_gap_460
          terms_80 NUhU_gap_460

     with

       GEK_807 terms_80 term_81 GIK_816
          terms_80 term_81 NUhU_gap_460

Now, a termset must have at least two terms.


  co'o mi'e veion

---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------