From owner-freebsd-standards  Thu Jan 16  9:34:22 2003
Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6955637B401
	for <freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web13401.mail.yahoo.com (web13401.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.59])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A76543F43
	for <freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:34:20 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from giffunip@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20030116173419.56970.qmail@web13401.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.24.79.64] by web13401.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:34:19 CET
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:34:19 +0100 (CET)
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Pedro=20F.=20Giffuni?=" <giffunip@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: flex vs SUS?? (was flex vs POSIX)
To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <20030116085315.GA12863@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-standards.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-standards>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-standards>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

You are right: -l would in fact break POSIX
compliance. The documentation (and code) is quite old
though. flex should be compared against the single
Unix Specification to see what's the current state. 

About the behaviour... I think lex should just be lex,
and flex must continue being flex :).

cheers,

    Pedro.

 --- Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> ha
scritto: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 06:10:40AM +0100,
Pedro F.
> Giffuni wrote:
> > Hi;
> > 
> > I'm reading the flex(1) manpage, in particular the
> > section "INCOMPATIBILITIES WITH LEX AND POSIX". I
> hate
> > to suggest this for the performance implications
> it
> > might bring, but for compliance reasons perhaps
> the -l
> > option (maximum compatibility) should be turned on
> > when flex is called as lex.
> 
> Probably not.  Reading the section you note it seems
> that flex is
> already compliant with POSIX (with one small
> exception that -l doesn't
> help with.)
> Flex has many extensions that are not in POSIX, but
> since these
> shouldn't be used by portable lexers anyway it
> doesn't matter.
> The -l option seems to turn on maximum
> compatibility, not with the
> standard, but with the original lex implementation.
> Today there are probably at least as many programs
> that depend on the
> behaviour of flex as there are that depend on the
> behaviour of the
> original implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> >     Pedro.
> > 
> > ps. Of course... this could break a lot of stuff
> if
> > done right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> <Insert your favourite quote here.>
> Erik Trulsson
> ertr1013@student.uu.se 

______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Cellulari: loghi, suonerie, picture message per il tuo telefonino
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/?http://it.mobile.yahoo.com/index2002.html

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message