Re: Locations suggest -- we're stupid

[Hans Aberg]

At 11:57 +0100 2002/01/07, Akim Demaille wrote:
>Nikos> My point is that we have much better knowledge to track errors
>Nikos> based on patterns than flex. Based on that knowledge we can be
>Nikos> much faster than flex can ever be. I enjoy flex's blazing
>Nikos> speed. Let's not make it top heavy. Sure it's compile time
>Nikos> options. I would hate to see some of this spill into the
>Nikos> executable.
>
>Exactly.  Featurism is bad.  This thread should never have started.
>We know better that Flex will ever.  All we need is a means to achieve
>our goals.  This is already the case.

Does this mean that you think that Flex's implementation of line numbers
should not be fixed so that it can be used instead of the very complicated
workaround user code that you proposed?

Is it not simpler for the diehards to simply not use the improved, more
efficient, features of the future, rather than telling people to not
discuss how to improve things?

After all, it seems that the reason that your code is faster than Flex's is
that the latter imposes REJECT code on line numbers. So if that is removed,
and becomes faster than your code, should that then not be used, because it
is better to write complicated and slower user code?

  Hans Aberg