From 07f68b1168d0df044bbd9cf53e27cffe07a5f31a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1987 06:53:07 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] entered into RCS

---
 REFERENCES | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 REFERENCES

diff --git a/REFERENCES b/REFERENCES
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b02eb18c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/REFERENCES
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+From phr Tue Jul  8 10:36:19 1986
+Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 00:52:24 EDT
+From: phr (Paul Rubin)
+To: riferguson%watmath.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, tower
+Subject: Re:  Bison documentation?
+
+The main difference between Bison and Yacc that I know of is that
+Bison supports the @N construction, which gives you access to
+the starting and ending line number and character number associated
+with any of the symbols in the current rule.
+
+Also, Bison supports the command `%expect N' which says not to mention
+the conflicts if there are N shift/reduce conflicts and no reduce/reduce
+conflicts.
+
+The differences in the algorithms stem mainly from the horrible
+kludges that Johnson had to perpetrate to make Yacc fit in a PDP-11.
+
+Also, Bison uses a faster but less space-efficient encoding for the
+parse tables (see Corbett's PhD thesis from Berkeley, "Static
+Semantics in Compiler Error Recovery", June 1985, Report No. UCB/CSD
+85/251), and more modern technique for generating the lookahead sets.
+(See "Efficient Construction of LALR(1) Lookahead Sets" by F. DeRemer
+and A. Pennello, in ACM TOPLS Vol 4 No 4, October 1982.  Their
+technique is the standard one now.)
+
+	paul rubin
+	free software foundation
+
+
-- 
2.45.2