Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

[Hans Aberg]

At 11:10 +0100 2005/03/24, Laurence Finston wrote:
>  > It would not be the old union, but a new union with new required
> >  semantics, that is clear.
>
> My point was that `union' is an element of the C and C++ languages,
> whereas your new `Union' class would not be.  I think this is important,
> others may not.

This discussion is very confusing, because it mixes two topics: 
Extending C++, and what is appropriate for Bison. As for the latter 
question, one would have to give iyt a different name that %union. 
But with the %typed and other features suggested here (%define), that 
would not be a problem.

>  > >The compatibility of C++ to C is not complete but reasonably close.
> >  >I think this is one of the best and most important features of C++.
>
> >  Personally, I think this is one of the biggest hurdles with C++,
> >  because it inherits all C language quirks.
>
> Stroustrup gives very thorough explanations of why he decided to do it
> this way and is very open about the disadvantages.  There is no free
> lunch.  It certainly makes it easier for a C programmer to start using
> C++.  If it were not so, I suspect it would make it more difficult or even
> impossible to do the kind of low-level programming with C++ that's
> possible with C.  If this were so, it would make C++ useless from my
> point of view.  (I know not everybody will agree me.)

C++ has been developed over several decades. And some of the later 
C++ features have problems to coexist with C.
--
  Hans Aberg