On 2 Dec 2006, at 06:23, Paul Eggert wrote:
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It seems to me that the following features ought to be documented as
experimental since they have been somewhat controversial even
among Bison
developers:
1. Default %destructor's and %printer's. These are currently
declared
with <*> and <>.
2. The prologue alternatives: %code, %requires, %provides, and %
code-top.
Yes. Though to be honest I can't even remember what all of them are
for....
I am too curious about that; especially %code: I suggested a %define
for code placement to be called %code. And %requires, %provides
sounds as though taken from LaTeX 2. But what is %code-top?
And isn't the technical word commonly used for experimental
"unsupported", meaning that there is no official support for its
stability.
Hans Aberg
