Re: lex/flex incompatabilities

Tony_Mason@transarc.com
Mon, 7 Oct 1991 09:28:57 -0400 (EDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
lex/flex incompatabilities jk@cs.man.ac.uk (1991-10-04)
Re: lex/flex incompatabilities cadreor!neil@uunet.uu.net (1991-10-05)
Re: lex/flex incompatabilities bart@cs.uoregon.edu (1991-10-06)
Re: lex/flex incompatabilities Tony_Mason@transarc.com (1991-10-07)
Re: lex/flex incompatabilities vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov (1991-10-07)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Tony_Mason@transarc.com
Keywords: lex, flex
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 91-10-014 91-10-019
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 09:28:57 -0400 (EDT)

Appendix D [of "lex and yacc" published by O'Reilly -John] was based on a
substantially earlier version of flex. I've found far fewer deviations in
the current (2.3.7) version of flex. What I have seen are that flex and
lex tolerate c-style comments differently in the rules section, handling
"included" files is totally different (use flex, it is so much easier),
and rewriting the input and unput routines differs substantially. I can
hardly claim this list is complete, but these are the differences which
quickly come to my mind.


The 2nd printing contains a corrected Appendix D. The 2nd edition is
still under way, albeit quite slowly.


Tony Mason
mason+@transarc.com
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.