-1 for ambiguity in 'let ?x ...' [State 278]
- the parser can't tell whether the ?x is the lhs of a normal binding or
- an implicit binding. Fortunately resolving as shift gives it the only
- sensible meaning, namely the lhs of an implicit binding.
-
-
-8 for ambiguity in 'e :: a `b` c'. Does this mean [States 238,267]
- (e::a) `b` c, or
- (e :: (a `b` c))
-
-6 for conflicts between `fdecl' and `fdeclDEPRECATED', [States 402,403]
- which are resolved correctly, and moreover,
- should go away when `fdeclDEPRECATED' is removed.
-
-1 for ambiguity in 'if x then y else z :: T'
- (shift parses as 'if x then y else (z :: T)', as per longest-parse rule)
-1 for ambiguity in 'if x then y else z with ?x=3'
- (shift parses as 'if x then y else (z with ?x=3)'
-3 for ambiguity in 'case x of y :: a -> b'
- (don't know whether to reduce 'a' as a btype or shift the '->'.
- conclusion: bogus expression anyway, doesn't matter)
-
+6 for conflicts between `fdecl' and `fdeclDEPRECATED', [States 384,385]
+ which are resolved correctly, and moreover,
+ should go away when `fdeclDEPRECATED' is removed.