On 21 Nov 2006, at 19:48, Joel E. Denny wrote:
I don't find the cleanup to be that tough especially now that we have
per-type %destructor. With the union, I find it convenient that
some of
my semantic types can be primitives, and I don't have to define a
common
base class for all semantic types.
It sounds as though it is fine with you. :-)
It's fine if you want to do it your way.
Thank you.
My point is simply that
%destructor is useful for some grammars using the current C++
skeletons,
and thus %destructor is not a C only feature.
C++ does not have a way to force one to use its OO features.
Hans Aberg
