On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, hz kto wrote: > > > If I have a list like this wouldn't I run into the problem when, > a parent node deletes some child nodes, then when I come across > this child in the list, I will crash since it has been deleted already?
That was the point of the following remark: > > Depending on circumstances, it might be advantageous for 'object' > > to refer to a 'Foo**' rather than a 'Foo*'. If this is unclear, I will be happy to provide an example. If you only ever delete objects by means of their corresponding 'Object_Type::object' pointers, than it would be safe to use simple pointers to 'Foo*'. In the list structure as illustrated, a node has only a single subsequent element, so it's not possible for a node to have multiple children. Nor is it possible to step through the list backwards. Of course, it would be possible to use a doubly-linked list or a tree instead. > > Ugrading to 2.0 is not easy, since different parts of software are using > Bison, which is slightly modified too, and I have no knowledge whether > it is going to impact those parts. It is an option, of course, that > I will investigate. > In the long run, I think it's probably a good idea to upgrade, whether you use '%destructor' or not. Laurence _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
