Re: %merge confusion

[Jot Dot]

I'm not trying to irritate you with all of this.
I probably starting to at this point but I'm really not trying to :)
If I must wait for some update then I will have to accept that.

I'm trying to convert over to *any glr form* that currently works.

> The code works when api.value.type union is not used, for instance when you
> use %union.

Alright. I took out the 'api.value.type union' and put in:
%union {
  gen::index_t index;
  merge_t merge;       // A struct to hold my merge info
}

All my tokens are of the form: %token <index> tok1 tok2 tok3 ...
All my rules are of the form: %type <index> rule1 rule2 rule3 ...

I get the same yyuserMerge as before. This time, it is using
the new type of the rule that the merge is in (%type <index> rule)

  case 1: yy0->index = stmtMerge (*yy0, *yy1); break;


> You did not provide the implementation of your merger, I'd like to see it.

The implementation is completely irrelevant. It is as what the manual requested:
static YYSTYPE stmtMerge (YYSTYPE x0, YYSTYPE x1);

Mine is the same, with no side-effects relating to bison.

static YYSTYPE stmtMerge(YYSTYPE x0, YYSTYPE x1)
{
    YYSTYPE st;
    // I'm building a tree. I'm just marking the two nodes in the tree as 
ambiguous.
    st.merge.index = x0.merge.pResult->makeList(x0.merge.index, x1.merge.index, 
node_t::list);
    x0.merge.pResult->ambig(st.merge.index);
    return st;
}

Like I said, if I need to wait for a fix then I can accept that.
If glr using POD works, I'm just hoping to find a 'working method' since my 
needs
seem to be minimal.

I am curious about one thing though. At first I wasn't fully sure what you
meant by "typed mergers". Previously you stated:

> Your problem follows from the fact that there is support for "typed" mergers.
> 
> FWIW, I was unaware of this feature (the fact that the merge functions are
> "typed").  This is undocumented, yet dates back from the initial introduction
> of GLR in Bison:

Looking at the manual's examples on the web page:
https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Merging-GLR-Parses.html

The difference between those examples and what I am doing here is that
I'm using '$$ = ' to assign values to rules and those examples don't.
This means I must give the subrules a %type. The manual examples don't.
Is this why it's a "typed merger"?  Which would mean the only glr examples that
will compile are ones that don't do a '$$ = ' which means my stuff won't work
no matter what I do - and thus any additional effort to get this working
is just wasting your time and mine?

Thanks