On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Hans Aberg wrote: > They should be OK in C++, as pointers do not have non-trival > con-/de-structors. The compiler needs to see a declaration of the > name as a type, though, before it sees the pointer.
If I remember correctly, it has to do with the size of the objects not being known at the time the `union' declaration is compiled. I'm not sure, but I think I tested this once and discovered, somewhat to my surprise, that using pointers in the `union' didn't work, either. When I get a chance, I'll check this carefully. Thanks. Laurence _______________________________________________ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
