Re: %destructor feedback

[Paul Eggert]

"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> >   A
>> >   simple macro that ignores its argument suffice to avoid the
>> >   complaints.
>> 
>> YYUSE should do the trick, no?  So all we need to do is document it?
>
> I vote for a different macro so that the original YYUSE could easily 
> evolve independently in case that proves to be necessary.  On the other 
> hand, it could always be reorganized later if the need arises.

Hmm, sorry, I don't quite follow.  Nobody is supposed to be using
YYUSE now, as it's part of Bison's reserved name space.  If we
document it now with the current meaning, then yes we'd have to
support that; but if we need to evolve it we can introduce a new YY*
macro with a new name, and use the new macro internally.

> There was some discussion of adding a function/macro to the user interface 
> to invoke destructors for all of $n.  This would help users update 
> grammars that depend on the current behavior of yacc's YYACCEPT and 
> YYABORT.

That would be nice, but I don't think it's essential for 2.2.  If
someone (you?) can implement it quickly let's put it in, but I
wouldn't have 2.2 wait for it.

There's one other issue that does need to be resolved: the legal
wording in the parser skeletons.  I'm still in discussion with the GNU
legal folks about that issue.  If this isn't resolved before 2.2 comes
out we can simply revert to the 2.1 language for now.