From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 28 19:56:06 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA07842 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA07799 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:55:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id UAA04485; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:53:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199603290353.UAA04485@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Flex To: narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee (Narvi) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:53:13 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Narvi" at Mar 28, 96 05:46:16 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-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > The problem (so to say) is simple - why does FreeBSD still use an old > version of flex? At least with -stable there goes the flex-2.4.7. Is > there any intrest in replacing the old one with flex-2.5.2? It seems to > be the last version and compile quite out of box. How does it work comiling world -- ie: how do the grammers behave with the new version of the tool? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.