On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, 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 just remembered that %code and %requires are used in the C++ examples in the documentation. Without a rewrite of those examples, %requires is necessary because there's no other directive that inserts user code into the parser header file. I'm not going to rewrite the C++ examples. Is it still ok to mark the prologue alternatives as experimental? Also, I'm thinking of commenting out any mention of Java from the documentation on the prologue alternatives. I doubt the Java skeleton will be complete in the next release, and we might forget to remove the documentation before then. Agreed?
