Hi Akim. On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:
> My quotation does not make it clear, but yysyntax_error is always defined (and > used, even for "simple" messages), and always with this signature. So that > one is really wrong. yysyntax_error is disabled if YYERROR_VERBOSE is off: % echo '%% start: ;' > tmp.y % ./tests/bison tmp.y % gcc -E tmp.tab.c | grep yysyntax_error That gives no output unless I add %error-verbose to the grammar. > so I guess we can afford dropping knr in the generated skeletons, without > polling in the NEWS (but we can inform in the NEWS of 2.4.2 that 2.5 will > completely drop KnR support in yacc.c, which was accidentally broken anyway > since Bison 2.1). After all, old tarballs are still there. I'd be willing to take that approach anyway. Like you said, if someone needs K&R, old Bisons are lying around: % aptitude search -F %p bison | grep -v ++ bison bison-1.35 bison-doc Alternatively, we could poll at help-bison and might get an answer faster. > As for C90 in bison itself, I'm fine with it. You mean C99, right? > Yet C++03 would be better ;) Why don't we discuss that again when at least 2.5 is released? Some cherry picks are already painful. Then again, I believe C++03 doesn't support all C99 constructs, such as variable length arrays. So, if we're not careful about our C99 usage, we might be making more work for whenever we switch to C++03.
