[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:33:28 +0100 |
At 14:18 +0100 2002/03/18, Akim Demaille wrote:
>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.
Yes, this is what I think. :-)
> Use CVS.
I think I will wait until it is sufficiently stable for putting in the
distribution. -- I think this is what others will do, so before that
happens, you will not get proper feedback.
>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.
At least not I. :-)
> If one does, she simply has to adjust
>the YYSTACK parameters, period.
If you would have followed your own RTFC dogma, you would have known that
this does not work. :-)
> I have no intention to augment the
>maintenance burden.
As I said before, I will curiously await your solution for multi-language
output support. :-)
Hans Aberg
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, (continued)
- 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, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union,
Hans Aberg <=
- 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
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20