Re: beta testing

[Philippe Bekaert]

> If you like the unions, use them, but there is no requirement to use them.
> (I think the point with unions is that one can get a type check, and ensure
> that the YYSTYPE data becomes smaller.) If you write in a header that is
> included from your .y file
>   class my_type {
>   ...
>   };
>   #define YYSTYPE my_type
> that will be updated whenever you change a field in the class. Or what do
> you mean?
If I change the %union declaration in my .y file, I want all my source
files to be recompiled with the proper, correspondingly updated YYSTYPE
union that bison generates.

Your point is that I should omit the %union declaration in the .y file,
or did I get this wrong? Omitting the %union declaration is something
that I don't want to do.

> Well, it must be sufficiently general, so that it suits _everybodys_ needs.
> This is some of the things Akim has been working on, removing restraints on
> the code, so that one can have more general arguments, etc.
I fully agree with this, but still, it can't be that hard.

> I am not at the GNU helms. Most seems to be happy to compile the .tab.c
> file as C++ (I do), which is perhaps one reason it takes so long getting
> C++ classes written.
That's what I did first too, but that's merely working around the
problem of not being able to generate parser objects.

> If you write something I would happy to see that; but wait till Akim (which
> is the man working on the current version) gives a reply.
OK, I'll wait for Akim's reply and try to get something proposed in a
bit more formal way.

Philippe.

--
Philippe Bekaert
Post-doctoral Research Fellow
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Informatik
Im Stadtwald, Geb. 46.1
66123 Saarbruecken - Germany
+49 681 9325422 (office phone)
+49 681 9325499 (office fax)
+49 179 4503121 (private phone)