Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence

[John W. Millaway]

> Technically, I think we're safe from POSIX anyway: it only strictly
> applies to the behaviour of /usr/bin/lex, or more generally the command
> "lex".  As long as we don't install a 'flex -l' wrapper under that name
> unless explicitly requested by the person installing the package, "flex"
> isn't "lex", so it can do whatever it wants.  Being compatible to POSIX'
> or any other standard's definition of "lex" is our choice, not a
> necessity.

Well said! I couldn't agree more. The standard is not our master.

Keep in mind that this issue is being pressed by SGI employees who have been
tasked with assuring that the 'lex' binary distributed with IRIX, etc., is in
conformance to UNIX98  -- a requirement mandated by the U.S. government for all
unix purchases. In other words, if SGI lex doesn't support the posix semantics
for "ab{3}", then the U.S. government can conceivably refuse to purchase SGI
equipment.  SGI plans to modify flex to behave according to the standard, then
distribute it as 'lex' (which they are perfectly free to do.)

However, while there are pressing demands at SGI to modify flex, there is no
such urgency elsewhere.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com