Re: %destructor feedback

[Joel E. Denny]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Akim Demaille wrote:

> I'd like to see 2.2 out in January if we can, so I'd like to close
> this file.  Do we agree that:
> 
> - we desire a warning about typed $n not used in the actions.  A
>   simple macro that ignores its argument suffice to avoid the
>   complaints.
> 
> - we desire that in all the skeletons no $n is ever freed from an
>   "active" rule, even if we leave it using YYACCEPT, YYERROR, or
>   YYABORT.

I agree.

Do these rules also apply to implicit actions?  That is, no user-specified 
action still means exactly {$$ = $1;}, and that may result in warnings 
about unused $n?  For the sake of simplicity, this is my preference.

Joel