[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited
From: |
Bruce Lilly |
Subject: |
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:32:30 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 |
John wrote:
That's what the function yyget_out() is for. See the section titled,
"Functions and Macros Available in Reentrant C Scanners", in the flex
manual.
Yes, but the shorthand yyout described in that section only works
directly in pattern actions, not in code in a separate module
which is called from a pattern action (unless exposed along with
everything else via the flex-generated header or redefined longhand),
and yyget_out() doesn't work in a static (non-reentrant) lexical
analyzer, does it? So if I either move code from an action to a
separate module or switch from a static to reentrant (or vice
versa) lexical analyzer, there's a great deal of rewriting to be
done unless everything in the header is exposed.
And there's still the issue of the macro renaming yyget_out to
fooget_out, which isn't available unless everything in the header
is exposed. Couldn't the macros related to prefix renaming be
left visible; there won't be any if there's no prefix option, and
if a prefix is being used, surely the programmer expects to get
the right functions rather than an undefined reference?
- Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/24
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/25
- 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 <=
- 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, 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