[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited
From: |
Bruce Lilly |
Subject: |
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:01:58 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 |
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Most of the other things I don't
really have need for.
One exception that I neglected to mention is that if
the flex option for reentrant code is used, YY_G,
the related structure, and the definitions of yyout
etc. that use YY_G may be required. Often the code
that uses those will be in the .l file and won't need
a separate header, but on large projects it may be
convenient to separate the regular expressions and
the detailed implementation code by putting the latter
in a separate C file, in which case a header is needed
and the relevant items need to be visible. Generally,
though, that code won't be in the parser file either,
so the issue of clashes doesn't generally arise.
- Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/24
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited,
Bruce Lilly <=
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26