Re: [Swig-devel] c++0x alternate function syntax

[David B. <da...@da...>]

>
> My question: When compiling I get 14 R/R confilcts (5 before!). Is  
> this
> ok? Is there another way I could change this? As far as I tested, the
> test cases work.
>

Having *ANY* reduce/reduce conflicts in the Swig grammar should be  
considered to be a bug in the implementation.  Past versions have had  
5 shift/reduce conflicts which are known.    Any added shift/reduce  
conflict will need to be thoroughly investigated, but given that it  
went from 5 to 14, I'm guessing that the parser is probably broken.

-Dave