Re: Comments in %union processed incorrectly

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:

Hans> At 15:39 +0100 2001/12/29, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> .. we expect to release as soon as we are finished with the
>> )(*(*&%&" C++ crap.

Hans> I don't think there is any point in delaying the release of 1.31
Hans> in order to do more work on the C/C++ compatibility mode: The
Hans> stuff I discovered when working up a genuine C++ file suggests
Hans> it is better to do that work under 1.31+.

This has always been my claim...


But we have introduced something which makes it worse than before.  It
annoys me a bit, since I had something which used to work, and now no
longer does.  If we can reestablish the previous behavior without
major surgery, nor throwing away the good stuff Paul brought, I'd be
most happy.  Otherwise, it just means that I'll have to wait for my
students' work on the C++ parsers.

The problem is that we now use an union to compute the alignments, and
only for that.  It just happens that I do have a Location class, which
does have ctors.  But now, because of this single union, this is no
longer proper C++: classes with ctors cannot be stored in a union.

As a result, my code no longer compiles.

Again, if there are other means than unions, I'm all for it.  But if
this is troublesome, forget about it, and let's focus on 1.49.