From owner-freebsd-questions  Thu Dec 14 14:44:47 1995
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA23663
          for questions-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bubba.tribe.com ([205.184.207.7])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA23648
          for <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.tribe.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00935; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:41:35 -0800
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@tribe.com>
Message-Id: <199512142241.OAA00935@bubba.tribe.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Lex or Flex?
To: kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Cc: fd11@dial.pipex.com, questions@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199512141638.RAA18231@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> from "Christoph Kukulies" at Dec 14, 95 05:38:56 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk


> FreeBSD 2.1 is (still) using Flex 2.4.7. Though it is named lex
> it really isn't. The naming is just for compatibility purposes with
> Makefiles etc.

And by the way, flex generates code that is way more efficient than lex
(or at least the original version of lex). I actually heard a talk by
the author of flex on the design & changes he made once, and it was pretty
interesting how much improvement he got.

-Archie

_______________________________________________________________________________
Archie L. Cobbs, archie@tribe.com  *  Tribe Computer Works http://www.tribe.com