Re: Flex vs. POSIX 1003.2-1992 repeat operator {} precedence

[W. L. Estes]

On Friday, 26 April 2002,15:37 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:

> There are two issues:
> 
> 1. lex/flex compatibility
> 2. POSIX conformance

There is a 3rd issue:

flex backward compatibility.

> Fixing the bug has benefits (POSIX conformance and lex compatibility)
> and is easily documented (by eliding text).  The alternative means
> that flex has to be documented as not being POSIX conformant, it would
> remain incompatible (in this respect) with lex, even with -l, and
> the documentation would have to be revised to provide the correct
> interpretation of POSIX and some rationale for non-conformance and
> incompatibility.  Sounds like a no-brainer.

Here's the thing: the posix standard is stupid, broken and wrong in
this respect. 

There is no reason why we can't provide both traditional flex behavior
and posix-mandated behavior.

--Will

-- 
Will Estes
Unix Systems Programmer
UNCG MIS, Systems Group