It invalidates the discussion of %code and %requires in the rest of that
section. This suggests we should have kept %before-header or some
equivalent.
I commited the following.
%requires and %code-top happen to be equivalent in Java, just like
epilogue and %provides. This was done just in case somebody did the
BYacc/J-ish
%{
package foo.bar;
%}
I am not sure if it is worth noting.
Thanks for fixing this. Even if all the four directives proved to be
necessary, I think that the new naming is much better as it is much more
language independent, and even if Java misses 2.3b (I hope not, I'd
rather have it in by 2006 in fact), it is better that the %*-header
naming did not crystallize in a stable release.
Paolo
