Joel E. Denny wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
Seriously, though, this business about "experimental" is kind of
demoralizing for users who are reading the manual. Why should they
invest their work in an "experimental" feature?
The C++ skeletons and %destructor seemed to do okay this way, but I don't
know the full history there.
Yes, but I also think that we should not exaggerate.
Personally, I would not label as experimental even the requires/provides
part (though I do find it a bit unnerving that we need %code-top...), as
well as %language.
If it wasn't for the language conventions, I would have kept the ".tab"
even in the Java output, as I don't like to depart too much from the
traditional Bison behavior.
Paolo
