"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul, I just looked through the ChangeLog. I believe you committed > the patch that made YYABORT and YYACCEPT invoke RHS destructors.
Yes, I'm the guilty party. :-) I hadn't thought through these consequences. > As I see it, there would be one rule at first: in all cases (usual > success, YYACCEPT, YYABORT, or YYERROR), the user must clean up RHS > semantic values in any semantic action he provides. > > Then there's the automatic destructor calls for unmentioned RHS > semantic values. This feature is proposed in the bison documentation. > If this feature is added, the user could avoid writing the destructor > invocation for a particular RHS semantic value by simply not > mentioning that semantic value in the semantic action. You seem to be > agreeing to this feature for the case of YYABORT and YYERROR in your > first response quoted above. Yes, I just didn't get the connection. I assumed you were proposing to modify the "one rule at first" with a special case for YYABORT/YYERROR. But instead, you were saying "let's add a special case for unmentioned RHS semantic values", and saying that that solves the YYABORT/YYERROR case. I agree with the latter special case, yes. > Please note that, later in this thread, Wolfgang and I pointed out a > number of potential problems with this proposed unmentioned RHS > semantic value feature. I wonder if it should be reconsidered. I must have missed those messages, or at least not understood them. The only message I got from Wolfgang was <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bison/2005-10/msg00046.html>; is that what you're referring to?
