Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| why use flex? frankhale@worldnet.att.net (Frank Hale) (1999-01-27) |
| Re: why use flex? irclark@latveria.castledoom.org (1999-01-31) |
| Re: why use flex? rkrayhawk@aol.com (1999-01-31) |
| Re: why use flex? tnaran@direct.ca (1999-02-01) |
| Re: why use flex? colas@aye.inria.fr (1999-02-03) |
| Re: why use flex? Marko.Makela@HUT.FI (Marko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4kel=E4?=) (1999-02-03) |
| Re: why use flex? tnaran@direct.ca (1999-02-05) |
| Re: why use flex? Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr (Theodore.Papadopoulo) (1999-02-05) |
| [3 later articles] |
| From: | irclark@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 31 Jan 1999 01:13:51 -0500 |
| Organization: | MindSpring Enterprises |
| References: | 99-01-111 |
| Keywords: | lex |
On 27 Jan 1999 21:15:32 -0500, Frank Hale <frankhale@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Why would someone use flex as opposed to writing there own lexer? I am
>developing my own scripting language and find it much simpler to
>create a lexer on my own, that way I can tailor it to my needs. What
>makes using flex any easier, the code it generates is very large and
>confusing even for a simple lexer.
I would expect that for most users of flex/lex, the complexity of the
generated scanner code is of little importance. The flex source is
what they will be maintaining. My experience is that flex scanners
are easy to maintain and particularly easy to expend compared to hand
coded scanners. On the other hand, I have not had occasion to need
scanning speeds above those easily obtainable with flex.
Isaac
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.