Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:53:15 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: flex vs POSIX Message-ID: <20030116085315.GA12863@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20030116051040.74303.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030116051040.74303.qmail@web13407.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030116085315.GA12863>