-We are working on a C++ output for Bison, but unfortunately, for lack
-of time, the skeleton is not finished. It is functional, but in
-numerous respects, it will require additional work which @emph{might}
-break backward compatibility. Since the skeleton for C++ is not
-documented, we do not consider ourselves bound to this interface,
-nevertheless, as much as possible we will try to keep compatibility.
-
-Another possibility is to use the regular C parsers, and to compile
-them with a C++ compiler. This works properly, provided that you bear
-some simple C++ rules in mind, such as not including ``real classes''
-(i.e., structure with constructors) in unions. Therefore, in the
-@code{%union}, use pointers to classes, or better yet, a single
-pointer type to the root of your lexical/syntactic hierarchy.
+We are working on a C++ output for Bison, but unfortunately, for lack of
+time, the skeleton is not finished. It is functional, but in numerous
+respects, it will require additional work which @emph{might} break
+backward compatibility. Since the skeleton for C++ is not documented,
+we do not consider ourselves bound to this interface, nevertheless, as
+much as possible we will try to keep compatibility.
+
+Another possibility is to use the regular C parsers, and to compile them
+with a C++ compiler. This works properly, provided that you bear some
+simple C++ rules in mind, such as not including ``real classes'' (i.e.,
+structure with constructors) in unions. Therefore, in the
+@code{%union}, use pointers to classes.