+@node Precedence Only
+@subsection Specifying Precedence Only
+@findex %precedence
+
+Since @acronym{POSIX} Yacc defines only @code{%left}, @code{%right}, and
+@code{%nonassoc}, which all defines precedence and associativity, little
+attention is paid to the fact that precedence cannot be defined without
+defining associativity. Yet, sometimes, when trying to solve a
+conflict, precedence suffices. In such a case, using @code{%left},
+@code{%right}, or @code{%nonassoc} might hide future (associativity
+related) conflicts that would remain hidden.
+
+The dangling @code{else} ambiguity (@pxref{Shift/Reduce, , Shift/Reduce
+Conflicts}) can be solved explictly. This shift/reduce conflicts occurs
+in the following situation, where the period denotes the current parsing
+state:
+
+@example
+if @var{e1} then if @var{e2} then @var{s1} . else @var{s2}
+@end example
+
+The conflict involves the reduction of the rule @samp{IF expr THEN
+stmt}, which precedence is by default that of its last token
+(@code{THEN}), and the shifting of the token @code{ELSE}. The usual
+disambiguation (attach the @code{else} to the closest @code{if}),
+shifting must be preferred, i.e., the precedence of @code{ELSE} must be
+higher than that of @code{THEN}. But neither is expected to be involved
+in an associativity related conflict, which can be specified as follows.
+
+@example
+%precedence THEN
+%precedence ELSE
+@end example
+
+The unary-minus is another typical example where associativity is
+usually over-specified, see @ref{Infix Calc, , Infix Notation
+Calculator: @code{calc}}. The @code{%left} directive is traditionaly
+used to declare the precedence of @code{NEG}, which is more than needed
+since it also defines its associativity. While this is harmless in the
+traditional example, who knows how @code{NEG} might be used in future
+evolutions of the grammar@dots{}
+