[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited
From: |
John |
Subject: |
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:21:26 -0500 (EST) |
> but there do seem to be too many public names by default with flex
> right now.
There are currently 16 macros exposed by the flex-generated header (of
a possible 97), and ALL of them are bugs. They crept in when one of us
added a macro to the skeleton, then forgot to append it to the #undef
list for the generated header.
There should be zero macros exposed by the flex header. Thus, there is
no namespace clash.
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, (continued)
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited,
John <=
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/27