Akim Demaille wrote: > > To actually allow this, you could have the typed constructors all > > accept the typeless tokens as well, but I don't consider that really > > necessary. Unless you want to support that for backward (bugward?) > > compatibility, I'll just change my code to make two separate > > make_symbol calls. > > Yes, I prefer it this way. The whole point of my work on C++'s > symbols so far is really to be type safe(r).
OK, I've changed my code accordingly. > See below, I have a working draft that completely replaces > make_symbol by "merging" the assert-based type checking into > the symbol_type constructors. Since that makes the ctors safe, > I'm fine with exposing them. Sorry, now I seem to be the one to have trouble using your patch: - It doesn't seem to be against 3.2.2, so I can't directly use "patch". - I tried to manually apply it (like I did yesterday), but failed (maybe I made some mistake this time, or it requires other changes, but I don't think debugging this is worthwhile). - I tried to get just c++.m4 and variant.hh from the branch and copy them over my installation, but that also failed. - Then I tried "Download ZIP" to get the whole branch, but then running ./bootstrap gave these errors which I don't quite get (I thought not requiring a git repository is the point of this download function): ./bootstrap: Bootstrapping from checked-out bison sources... ./bootstrap: getting gnulib files... fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /tmp) Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set). - I guess the right thing is to clone the repository, but unfortunately git is quite data hungry and I'm a bit short on data volume (no broadband in my new appartment yet, and mobile data is paid in gold here in Germany), so I could only do it on a server on which I have access (in the hope of running "make dist" or so to get it to my machine then), but after downloading >100 MB (like I feared), bootstrap failed with lots of warnings and errors (the server is still running jessie, which I can't change, guess that's too old to bootstrap bison). I suppose I could ask you to send me a "dist" archive for testing now, or if only "data" files need changes compared to 3.2.2, post those, but for testing future changes, that's not a very nice workflow. Is there any better way? Regards, Frank