Re: %destructor feedback

[Wolfgang Spraul]

Joel -

> Are you now talking about a YYCLEANUP macro or YYABORT_CLEANUP and
> YYERROR_CLEANUP macros?
>
> If you mean YYCLEANUP, it would need to return.  Would a function call be
> too inefficient?

Sorry, I made a mistake here. You are right - if YYCLEANUP is a goto, then it 
cannot return. Surely a single function call would not be too much overhead 
in my opinion.

> > For bison, I believe the order of importance on this cleanup issue goes
> > like this:
> >
> > 1. document cleanup behavior in the manual
> > 2. make cleanup behavior consistent across YYABORT/YYERROR and all
> > skeletons (I guess this means _no_ auto cleanup)
> > 3. offer more cleanup flexibility (macros)
>
> I agree.
>
> I believe you and I are in agreement on how the first 2 points should be
> resolved.

Alright - as I said before, I think this thread has come to an end - we agree 
on 1. and 2. - and for 3., I would prefer something like YYERROR_CLEANUP and 
YYABORT_CLEANUP in _addition_ to the regular YYERROR/YYABORT macros.
There are many other ways to offer 'more cleanup flexibility', all of which 
were discussed in this thread. Lots of pros and cons for each one.
My vote is in - YYERROR_CLEANUP+YYABORT_CLEANUP, but I would happily accept to 
be the minority, and I wouldn't even have the time to create a patch for my 
two cleanup macros anyway, so I depend on someone else's generosity to offer 
or not offer 'more cleanup flexibility'.

Best Regards,
Wolfgang