Re: experimental features in Bison 2.3a+

[Hans Aberg]

On 2 Dec 2006, at 06:23, Paul Eggert wrote:

> "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > It seems to me that the following features ought to be documented as
> > experimental since they have been somewhat controversial even  
> > among Bison
> > developers:
> >
> > 1. Default %destructor's and %printer's.  These are currently  
> > declared
> > with <*> and <>.
> >
> > 2. The prologue alternatives: %code, %requires, %provides, and % 
> > code-top.
>
> Yes.  Though to be honest I can't even remember what all of them are
> for....

I am too curious about that; especially %code: I suggested a %define  
for code placement to be called %code. And %requires, %provides  
sounds as though taken from LaTeX 2. But what is %code-top?

And isn't the technical word commonly used for experimental  
"unsupported", meaning that there is no official support for its  
stability.

  Hans Aberg