Re: %destructor feedback

2005-10-20 Thread Joel E. Denny
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Paul Eggert wrote: "Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This thread started on help-bison. At some point, I CC'ed to bug-bison. However, it eventually lost that CC and then picked it up again. Could this be why you missed messages? Yes, that's it. It's such a l

Re: %destructor feedback

2005-10-20 Thread Paul Eggert
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This thread started on help-bison. At some point, I CC'ed to > bug-bison. However, it eventually lost that CC and then picked it up > again. Could this be why you missed messages? Yes, that's it. It's such a long thread, though. If you're thinking

Re: %destructor feedback

2005-10-20 Thread Joel E. Denny
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Paul Eggert wrote: "Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Paul, I just looked through the ChangeLog. I believe you committed the patch that made YYABORT and YYACCEPT invoke RHS destructors. Yes, I'm the guilty party. :-) I hadn't thought through these consequence

Re: %destructor feedback

2005-10-20 Thread Paul Eggert
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul, I just looked through the ChangeLog. I believe you committed > the patch that made YYABORT and YYACCEPT invoke RHS destructors. Yes, I'm the guilty party. :-) I hadn't thought through these consequences. > As I see it, there would be one rul

Re: [GNU Bison 2.1] testsuite: 5 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 62 63 [...]

2005-10-20 Thread Paul Eggert
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This was reported in > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00050.html > and > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00037.html > > and fixed in > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg0

Re: %destructor feedback

2005-10-20 Thread Joel E. Denny
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Akim Demaille wrote: "Joel" == Joel E Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've also noticed that the bison documentation says: > Note that in the future, Bison might also consider that right hand > side members that are not mentioned in the action can be destroyed. >

Re: [GNU Bison 2.1] testsuite: 5 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 62 63 [...]

2005-10-20 Thread Akim Demaille
This was reported in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00050.html and http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00037.html and fixed in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00030.html Thanks!

Re: %destructor feedback

2005-10-20 Thread Akim Demaille
>>> "Joel" == Joel E Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I prefer that the clean-up *not* happen automatically for either > YYABORT or YYERROR -- as in GLR parsing. This would allow for a > simple consistent rule: if the user's semantic action executes, > then the user's semantic action is re