Re: Locations suggest -- we're stupid

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:

Hans> 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.

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

There are two issues you are confusing: 1. the bug I expposed wrt
REJECT, and 2. the code it uses anyway.

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

You are referring to `die-hard' features.  If you mean to help the
novice, then drop dead Bison and Flex, have a look at something
modern, such as ANTLR.

Hans> After all, it seems that the reason that your code is faster
Hans> than Flex's is that the latter imposes REJECT code on line
Hans> numbers. 

No.

Hans> So if that is removed, and becomes faster than your code, should
Hans> that then not be used, because it is better to write complicated
Hans> and slower user code?

Because you don't understand: the point is about *all the different
uses*.

But enough already.  I said what I had to say.  I don't care if people
want to implement that.  I was only trying to have you understand that
you'll end up implementing what _you_ want, not what people will need.