Re: flex beta 2.5.23 released

[W. L. Estes]

On Monday, 25 November 2002,16:33 -0500, Bruce Lilly 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?

Probably a case-by-case basis. The simpler the patch the more likely
it will be accepted.

> > 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...

There's an option for that one. --posix.

--Will