Re: experimental features in Bison 2.3a+

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, 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.
> 
> Well, I've sat on this long enough.
> 
> > I just remembered that %code and %requires are used in the C++ examples in 
> > the documentation.  Without a rewrite of those examples, %requires is 
> > necessary because there's no other directive that inserts user code into 
> > the parser header file.
> > 
> > I'm not going to rewrite the C++ examples.  Is it still ok to mark the 
> > prologue alternatives as experimental?
> 
> For a test release, this should be fine.
> 
> > Also, I'm thinking of commenting out any mention of Java from the 
> > documentation on the prologue alternatives.  I doubt the Java skeleton 
> > will be complete in the next release, and we might forget to remove the 
> > documentation before then.  Agreed?
> 
> We can add it back later if necessary.

The above message was rejected as stock spam again, so I've attached the 
patch.

exper-patch
Description: Text document