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

[Hans Aberg]

At 15:56 -0400 2002/04/28, W. L. Estes wrote:
>> If there is something wrong with the standard, then the standard should be
>> changed. -- But one should still be able to write programs compatible with
>> the standard.
>
>But the folks at sgi point out that the standard is what it is and
>they want to comply with it--even if it's brain-dead.

My C/C++ compiler has an "ANSI/ISO strict" button; then one can click other
options to depart as one wish from that. Flex might work similarly with
respect to POSIX.

> it's worth pointing out that "flex -l" is an
>attempt to confirm to AT&T lex, which is a slightly different beast
>then posix-mandated lex. (The posix-mandated interpretation should be
>implied by "flex -l", however.)

Then there should perhaps be two options, one for POSIX lex and one for
AT&T lex. If one breaks down the differences into atoms, selectable by
options, it should not be so difficult to implement.

  Hans Aberg