Re: %destructor declared by semantic type

[Paul Eggert]

"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:

> 1. If Bison finds <tag> usage (once you're done with your patch for this), 
> then it should assume the user will define YYSTYPE as a union.  This 
> subcase should be no different from the case where the user declares 
> %union, right?

Right.

> 2. If Bison finds no <tag> usage, then destructors by type make no sense, 
> so perhaps Bison should report an error if the user declares such 
> destructors.  However, destructors by symbol do still make sense.  A 
> catch-all destructor makes sense too, I think.

I agree with this as well.