On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
Are you now talking about a YYCLEANUP macro or YYABORT_CLEANUP and
YYERROR_CLEANUP macros?
If you mean YYCLEANUP, it would need to return. Would a function call be
too inefficient?
Sorry, I made a mistake here. You are right - if YYCLEANUP is a goto, then it
cannot return. Surely a single function call would not be too much overhead
in my opinion.
Great.
I would prefer something like YYERROR_CLEANUP and
YYABORT_CLEANUP in _addition_ to the regular YYERROR/YYABORT macros.
After reading the ChangeLog, I've noticed there would also need to be a
YYACCEPT_CLEANUP. More encouragement to go the single YYCLEANUP route.
My vote is in - YYERROR_CLEANUP+YYABORT_CLEANUP, but I would happily accept to
be the minority, and I wouldn't even have the time to create a patch for my
two cleanup macros anyway, so I depend on someone else's generosity to offer
or not offer 'more cleanup flexibility'.
Unless someone (hopefully) beats me to it, I may be the one to implement
this. If so, I'll go for a single YYCLEANUP function. It may not be your
strongest preference, but it seems it'll satisfy your needs.
A few warnings:
1. I believe there's a feature freeze until 2.2 is released.
2. I may rename YYCLEANUP to something better: yycleanup_rhs() or
something like that. Just watch the mailing lists.
Thanks for the discussion.
Joel
_______________________________________________
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison