[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union |
Date: |
18 Mar 2002 14:18:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) |
>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:
Hans> At 11:31 +0100 2002/03/18, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> It seems we are not done yet with the C++ issues.
>>
>> The problem this time is that we have to throw away your union
>> trick to compute the alignments. We cannot afford to put YYSTYPE
>> (and actually YYLTYPE) into a union, as it makes it impossible for
>> C++ users to use any useful structure in it.
Hans> I think that if you now have a C++ skeleton file, that should be
Hans> put into the ordinary distribution. Those that want a C++ output
Hans> should use that one, not compile the C output as C++.
No. Use CVS.
Hans> As for the C output only feature, I think one may need two
Hans> skeleton files: One with a purely stack produces an overflow,
Hans> and one purely dynamic. This is more memory efficient. But that
Hans> could be made later at some point (with the C++ skeleton file in
Hans> hand, there is no need for rush).
I don't think anybody cares. If one does, she simply has to adjust
the YYSTACK parameters, period. I have no intention to augment the
maintenance burden.
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, (continued)
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/13
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Christian Bauer, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/20