[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence
From: |
John W. Millaway |
Subject: |
Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:59:48 -0700 (PDT) |
I propose this solution:
We distribute with flex a version of lex that is posix-compliant. Building flex
on your system will also build 'lex'. If the user decides that posix compliance
is more important than performance, clarity, and usability, then she should
invoke `flex -l`, in which case, flex passes the buck to 'lex'. No existing
flex scanners will break, the flex parser doesn't need to be hacked, and flex
is free to grow as a tool.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
- Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Casey Leedom, 2002/04/26
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Vern Paxson, 2002/04/26
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/27
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Hans-Bernhard Broeker, 2002/04/27
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, John W. Millaway, 2002/04/27
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/28
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, W. L. Estes, 2002/04/28
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/29
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Hans-Bernhard Broeker, 2002/04/29
- Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence, Hans Aberg, 2002/04/29