Re: Lex surrogates

Vern Paxson <>
Mon, 06 Feb 89 16:14:45 PST

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Lex surrogates!db@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK (Dave Berry) (1989-02-05)
Re: Lex surrogates schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU (Douglas C. Schmidt) (1989-02-05)
Re: Lex surrogates (Vern Paxson) (1989-02-06)
Re: Lex surrogates rsalz@BBN.COM (Rich Salz) (1989-02-07)
Re: Lex surrogates wpl@PRC.Unisys.COM (1989-02-06)
Re: Lex surrogates (Ken Yap) (1989-02-09)
Re: Lex surrogates (1989-02-09)
Re: Lex surrogates tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (1989-02-10)
Re: Lex surrogates (1989-02-11)
[4 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Date: Mon, 06 Feb 89 16:14:45 PST
From: Vern Paxson <>!db@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK (Dave Berry) asked about scanner
generators that claim to produce smaller and faster scanners than Lex,
listing three references of which "None of them seem to have caught on."

Allow me if I may to plug flex, which is my lex rewrite claiming to produce
smaller and faster scanners than Lex. It has caught on fairly well, to
judge from the email and bug reports I receive, and I've been told that
UCB's CSRG will be using it to replace lex in subsequent BSD releases. It's
available as flex.shar.Z for anonymous ftp from (;
it's also available (sorry, I don't know the exact name) from
(, though as schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU (Douglas C. Schmidt) writes:

> Arrrrrggghh. I can't take the spread of misinformation any more! GNU
> C and GNU C++ *don't* use LEX or FLEX or GNULEX (no, it doesn't
> exist).

I.e., it's not part of the GNU project. It \is/ "free" software in
more-or-less the same spirit, however, which I think is why they are
distributing it.


Vern Paxson
Real Time Systems ucbvax!!vern
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (415) 486-6580

Post a followup to this message

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