Update.

TODO

@@ -12,18 +12,16 @@ They should not: it is not documented.  But if they need to, let's
 find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...).
 
 
-* URGENT: Documenting C++ output
-Write a first documentation for C++ output.
-
-
 * Documentation
 Before releasing, make sure the documentation ("Understanding your
 parser") refers to the current `output' format.
 
+* lalr1.cc
+** vector
+Move to using vector, drop stack.hh.
 
-* GLR & C++
+** I18n
-Currently, the GLR parser cannot compile with a C++ compiler.
+Catch up with yacc.c.
-
 
 * Report
 
@@ -52,14 +50,7 @@ DeRemer and Penello: they already provide the algorithm.
 
 * Extensions
 
-** %destructor
+** Labeling the symbols
-I think we should document it as experimental, and allow its use in
-the next releases.  But we also need to port it to GLR.  What about
-lalr1.cc?  Well, read what Hans reported, maybe we don't want
-%detructor.  On the other hand, there is no reason not to provide it:
-users can avoid its use.
-
-** $foo
 Have a look at the Lemon parser generator: instead of $1, $2 etc. they
 can name the values.  This is much more pleasant.  For instance:
 
@@ -69,6 +60,21 @@ I love this.  I have been bitten too often by the removal of the
 symbol, and forgetting to shift all the $n to $n-1.  If you are
 unlucky, it compiles...
 
+But instead of using $a etc., we can use regular variables.  And
+instead of using (), I propose to use `:' (again).  Paul suggests
+supporting `->' in addition to `:' to separate LHS and RHS. In other
+words:
+
+       r:exp -> a:exp '+' b:exp { r = a + b; };
+
+That requires an significant improvement of the grammar parser.  Using
+GLR would be nice.  It also requires that Bison know the type of the
+symbols (which will be useful for %include anyway).  So we have some
+time before...
+
+Note that there remains the problem of locations: `@r'?
+
+
 ** $-1
 We should find a means to provide an access to values deep in the
 stack.  For instance, instead of