From: Hans Aberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> This discussion is very confusing, because it mixes two topics:
> Extending C++, and what is appropriate for Bison.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think adding type information to `union'
would be in the spirit of C. If this feature were added, the first thing I'd
do would be to look for a way to turn it off.
> As for the latter
> question, one would have to give iyt a different name that %union.
> But with the %typed and other features suggested here (%define),
> that would not be a problem.
No, but what would be the advantage over something like the following?
struct Yystype_Struct
{
unsigned short type;
void* object;
};
I don't understand why you would want to use `union' at all. Of course,
what's appropriate for Bison is up to the maintainers and developers, so I'll
stay out of that one. From my point of view as a user, it's perfectly simple
to use `void*' in `%union', and I suspect that it will be perfectly simple to
use it as `YYSTYPE' (I haven't tried it yet).
So what problem are you trying to solve?
Laurence
_______________________________________________
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
