Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? markus.cl@gmx.de (2004-06-26) |
| Re: Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? cbarron413@adelphia.net (Carl Barron) (2004-06-28) |
| Re: Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2004-06-28) |
| Re: Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2004-06-28) |
| Re: Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2004-06-30) |
| Re: Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? johnmillaway@yahoo.com (John Millaway) (2004-06-30) |
| Re: Several flex scanners share common rules/definitions? sjohnson@mathworks.com (Steve Johnson) (2004-07-13) |
| From: | Hans Aberg <haberg@matematik.su.se> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 28 Jun 2004 20:04:57 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 04-06-102 |
| Keywords: | lex |
| Posted-Date: | 28 Jun 2004 20:04:57 EDT |
>, markus.cl@gmx.de (Markus Dehmann) wrote:
>I have two scanners that use basically the same regular expressions
>and differ only in a few details. How can I write the two lex files so
>that I don't have to write the common things twice?
Using a scanner like Flex, the only viable way is probably to write a
common file for some text-processing program (say Perl, M4), that then
generates two .l files. The thing is that the lexer regular expression
grammar is transformed into a DFA, and (I suspect) two quite similar
grammars can result in quite different DFA's. You might inquiry further in
the Help-flex mailing list
help-flex@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-flex
Hans Aberg
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.