Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

At 19:34 +0100 2005/03/23, Laurence Finston wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Hans Aberg wrote: At 14:16 +0100 2005/03/23, Laurence Finston wrote: >Add it where? Just add a field, invisible to the user, with the type information. I meant "in C++ or in Bison?" In the context, I though you meant exten

Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Hans Aberg wrote: > At 14:16 +0100 2005/03/23, Laurence Finston wrote: > >Add it where? > Just add a field, invisible to the user, with the type information. I meant "in C++ or in Bison?" > Dynamic allocations must have such a field with the size, so that it > can be prope

Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

At 14:16 +0100 2005/03/23, Laurence Finston wrote: > The union does not contain any type information which field is selected. If one adds that, unions with non-trivial con-/de-Structors would be possible. Add it where? Just add a field, invisible to the user, with the type information. Dynamic

Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

Hans Aberg wrote: > With unions, the problem is, if con-/de-structors are non-trivial, that it > is impossible to know which ones to apply and when. Stroustrup, _The C++ Programming Language_, Special Edition, 2000, p. 257, Section 10.4.12: "Consequently, a union may not have members with constr