On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:55:53 -0400, Neil Roeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Jun 13, Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:02:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:20:37 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > >> > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:40:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava >> > > wrote: >> > >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:22:17 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz >> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > >> >> > >> >> You need to read up on your standards. The language called >> > >> >> C is defined by only one authoritative standard. >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) (C)ISO/IEC >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Contents ix >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 5 This second edition cancels and replaces the first >> > >> >> edition, ISO/IEC 9899:1990, as amended and corrected by >> > >> >> ISO/IEC 9899/COR1:1994, ISO/IEC 9899/AMD1:1995, and ISO >> > >> >> /IEC 9899/COR2:1996. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Thus, I need have no such qualifiers when talking abouit >> > >> >> conforming C implmentations. >> > >> >> > >> > Given the real-world deployment of probably at least a dozen >> > >> > major OSs which were 9899:1990 conformant and predate the >> > >> > 9899:1999 standard, I'd say that's a pretty useless point of >> > >> > view. >> > >> >> > >> OOh, I am blinded by the cogency of your arguments. >> > >> >> > >> C99 is over 3 years old. >> > >> > > And still not fully implemented. Unstable only switched to a >> > > compiler with minimal C99 support some months ago. GCC has no >> > > roadmap for implementing the remaining C99 features so it may >> > > be years before they are available on free operating systems. >> > >> > And? You seem to be implying (incorrectly), that flex requires >> > more of C99 than is already present in Debian and a post 2.95 >> > gcc. The new flex has been compiled, and has all the test suites >> > succesfully compile, on all 11 architectures Debian supports. >> > >> > >> For ancient platforms, use flex-old. >> > >> >> > >> Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you >> > >> can do whatever you want with your packages and your code. >> > >> > > I am somewhat distressed that the version of flex provided with >> > > Debian (I am assuming from the discussion) will not be usable >> > > for cross-platform development without constant care to use >> > > flex-old instead. We've finally persuaded binutils and GCC to >> > > move into the era of C90 source. I don't think we'll see C99 >> > > widely enough supported to write portable software using it >> > > until 2008 at least. >> > >> > Again you raise a strawman. Flex comes with a plethora of >> > tests, and all the tests have always been passed. Flex works >> > with all 11 architectures that comprise debian (we have a >> > mysterious test failure on the most recent m68k run, though I >> > think it may have more to do with the new gcc there than >> > anything else). >> > >> > Now, if you have any concrete objections as to why flex does >> > not work in Debian, please feeel free to point them out. If you >> > merely want to grumble about how flex may not work until 2008, >> > without providing a basis for such grumplings, I am sure I can't >> > help you there. >> >> You have missed my point. I am quite aware that flex-generated >> lexers will continue to work on all Debian platforms. But until >> C99 is much more mature than it is today, many other significant >> platforms will not have a C99-compatible compiler - even to the >> degree of including <stdint.h>. Therefore Debian becomes more >> awkward for cross-platform, portable development. Not useless, >> because of flex-old, but certainly more awkward; I will not be able >> to build Debian packages which require a recent flex in the same >> root in which I build cross-platform software. >> >> Certainly you have not broken Debian; but I maintain that this >> short-sightedness does damage Debian's usefulness as a development >> platform, for all those targets which many more practical >> developers must support in order to do their jobs. > I think this is an excellent point. I can think of many times when > I've done development work in Debian and ported the result to > Solaris, IRIX or HPUX. It is, of course, not a requirement for > Debian that this be easy, but the easier it is, the more convincing > the argument for integrating Debian into a mixed *nix environment, > for everyone from developers to CIOs. Fine. You can then still choose to use flex-old (of course, any C++ scanners you have shall fail to work with gcc 3.3, and even for C scanners all bets are off wrt new compilers). Or you can use the new flex, and get scanners that require conforming implementations. Debian offers you the cjoice -- since there is none which is unequivocally better. manoj -- "We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise." --Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C