[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union |
Date: |
19 Mar 2002 17:42:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) |
>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony DeRobertis <address@hidden> writes:
Anthony> On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 06:28 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
>> ... not compile the C output as C++.
Anthony> This used to work, in the same stable series of bison. It was
Anthony> never documented not to work, and perhaps is even documented
Anthony> to work.
That's correct. `Accidently' is used to work (partially). It has
never been implemented to this end.
Anthony> Changing that is fine and --- in view of the other C++
Anthony> problems using the C skeleton --- a good idea, but not in a
Anthony> stable point release. It breaks a fair amount of
Anthony> software. It breaks stuff that, when reading the
Anthony> documentation, should work. Don't do that in a stable point
Anthony> release.
You seem to be drawing the wrong conclusion from the correct
observables: we did not mean to break it. It just happened that some
people were using Bison in an unexpected way. It is true,
nevertheless, that I was not aware of the number of people who play
this kind of trick to be able to use C++. The fact is, I do myself
use (well, used to) a C++ parser with C output, but as I used %union,
everything was fine. What we not expected, was that some people were
directly defining YYSTYPE.
Anthony> Do it in CVS. Do it for bison 1.5. It's a good idea, but for
Anthony> the right time.
Another good idea is C++ users using this CVS Bison. As noted by
Hans, I want some tests first. There are a couple of issues to fix
(for instance we still output #define, although enum are now easy to
output (Robert, would you handle this bit please?), and then, I plan
to give it a shot on some other projects than ours (e.g., GiNaC0, then
make a prerelease, and ask for opinions.
But people should understand that we _need_ input. Do not wait for an
official release to realize it does not fulfill your needs!
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, (continued)
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Christian Bauer, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Paul Eggert, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/19
- Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20