Re: flex beta 2.5.23 released

[Bruce Lilly]

John Millaway wrote:

> I could have used `int_least32_t', etc.,
> instead, which are required by C99
[...]

That would still be a problem as flex would then
*require* the C99 extensions to ANSI C.  It would
be completely incompatible with K&R C.

Look at what the FLEX_NEEDS... branch does (ignoring int64_t):

typedef signed char int8_t;
typedef short int int16_t;
typedef int int32_t;

One might as well simply *use* signed char, short, and int
types (since that will be exactly the same as when the
FLEX_NEEDS... branch is taken) and avoid the portability
issues.  And before you reply that short isn't necessarily
large enough for 16 bits, note that in those cases the
FLEX_NEEDS... branch won't work anyway.