Re: flex beta 2.5.23 released

[Bruce Lilly]

W. L. Estes wrote:

> K&R compatibility is a non-interest.

Could you please clarify what that means.  Are patches to
address compiling flex-generated .c files on K&R compilers
welcome or unwelcome?  What about patches for building flex
itself on K&R systems?

> ANSI compatibility is nice, but
> not always practical.

Agreed, absolutely. intN_t is a prime example of practical
problems.

> POSIX is where most of the flex development
> happens. I personally think that expecting POSIX compliance is a
> reasonable expectation.

I don't disagree.  But that's not really relevant to the
intN_t issue.  Unless recently changed, POSIX is silent
regarding those types, which are ANSI C99 issues. But
beware POSIX compliance; there's a flex issue where the
default precedence for evaluation of some regexps differs
from what POSIX requires...