-should it reduce them via the rule for the subtraction operator? It depends
-on the next token. Of course, if the next token is @samp{)}, we must
-reduce; shifting is invalid because no single rule can reduce the token
-sequence @w{@samp{- 2 )}} or anything starting with that. But if the next
-token is @samp{*} or @samp{<}, we have a choice: either shifting or
-reduction would allow the parse to complete, but with different
-results.
-
-To decide which one Bison should do, we must consider the
-results. If the next operator token @var{op} is shifted, then it
-must be reduced first in order to permit another opportunity to
-reduce the difference. The result is (in effect) @w{@samp{1 - (2
-@var{op} 3)}}. On the other hand, if the subtraction is reduced
-before shifting @var{op}, the result is @w{@samp{(1 - 2) @var{op}
-3}}. Clearly, then, the choice of shift or reduce should depend
-on the relative precedence of the operators @samp{-} and
-@var{op}: @samp{*} should be shifted first, but not @samp{<}.
+should it reduce them via the rule for the subtraction operator? It
+depends on the next token. Of course, if the next token is @samp{)}, we
+must reduce; shifting is invalid because no single rule can reduce the
+token sequence @w{@samp{- 2 )}} or anything starting with that. But if
+the next token is @samp{*} or @samp{<}, we have a choice: either
+shifting or reduction would allow the parse to complete, but with
+different results.
+
+To decide which one Bison should do, we must consider the results. If
+the next operator token @var{op} is shifted, then it must be reduced
+first in order to permit another opportunity to reduce the difference.
+The result is (in effect) @w{@samp{1 - (2 @var{op} 3)}}. On the other
+hand, if the subtraction is reduced before shifting @var{op}, the result
+is @w{@samp{(1 - 2) @var{op} 3}}. Clearly, then, the choice of shift or
+reduce should depend on the relative precedence of the operators
+@samp{-} and @var{op}: @samp{*} should be shifted first, but not
+@samp{<}.