Re: prologue alternatives (was: Re: [GNU Bison 2.3] testsuite: 103 104 failed)

[Paul Eggert]

> From: Joel E. Denny
> My last proposal went something like this, but the thread died:

I'm afraid that it died on my part because it wasn't clear to me that
your proposal, although better than the current state, is better than
the old way where there was just %{ ... %} and %union { ... }.  The
old way is messy and complicated, but at least it's standardized and
has well-known properties.  The proposed method considerably is more
complicated than the old way, and its advantage is -- what?

I'm trying to think about this more now because I ran into yet another
problem with the current way -- it fails "make maintainer-check" due
to yet another obscure problem with header ordering and YYSTYPE.  I
really haven't a clue as to why the test is the way it is, and I'm
inclined to remove the test because I don't understand it.  This is
not a healthy situation.