Joel E. Denny wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > > > Akim Demaille wrote: > > > >> Maybe that does not deserve that much attention: it seems pretty weird > >> not to use a value. A warning seems a better feature. > > > > I sometimes attach some kinds of flags (integer type) to some > > symbols that I need in some, but not all, rules that use that > > symbol. So, if you go for the warning, could you please make it > > optional? (I think it would be a useful feature in general, > > including several of my grammars, but in some cases I'd probably > > prefer to turn it off.) > > If your semantic value is just an integer, then you probably won't declare > a destructor. In that case, I should think there's no reason for bison to > generate a warning. Would that resolve your issue?
That would probably work. However, I'm considering whether such a warning might not be useful even in absence of destructors in many cases (not the above-mentioned grammar, of course, but many others), as not using a semantic value is often, as Akim said, pretty weird. I can't really tell off-hand. I guess I'd have to check the effects of such a warning on my grammars (which usually don't have destructors, yet), but I suppose it would be useful in a number of cases. Frank -- Frank Heckenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fjf.gnu.de/ GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E) _______________________________________________ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison