On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 21 Nov 2006, at 19:23, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > > > As for my program, the parser builds dynamic iterated polymorphic > > > objects, > > > and in cmopbination with a reference count, that is very convenient. > > > > I have programs that do this too. Inside the union, pointers to non-POD's > > work fine. > > If you want to implement the cleanup by hand when you do not have to, that is > fine with me, as long as I do not have to do it. :-)
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's fine if you want to do it your way. 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.
