[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: %destructor feedback
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: %destructor feedback |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:54:26 -0500 (EST) |
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
- Re: %destructor feedback, (continued)
- Re: %destructor feedback, Frank Heckenbach, 2005/12/06
- Re: %destructor feedback, Joel E. Denny, 2005/12/06
- Re: %destructor feedback, Frank Heckenbach, 2005/12/06
- Re: %destructor feedback, Joel E. Denny, 2005/12/06
- Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/07
- Re: %destructor feedback, Paul Eggert, 2005/12/07
- Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/07
Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/19
Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/21
Re: %destructor feedback, Joel E. Denny, 2005/12/21
Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/21
Re: %destructor feedback, Joel E. Denny, 2005/12/21
Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/22
Re: %destructor feedback, Frank Heckenbach, 2005/12/21