On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> >
> > the autoconf maintainers do not appear to be interested in maintaining
> > compatibility with lex/yacc (other than paying lip-service to the notion).
> >
>
> Aren't you an autoconf maintainer? ;)
no - I maintain a stable pa
Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
the autoconf maintainers do not appear to be interested in maintaining
compatibility with lex/yacc (other than paying lip-service to the notion).
Aren't you an autoconf maintainer? ;)
Earnie.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Akim Demaille wrote:
> [snip]
> > I think a lot could be done to improve the interface provided that we
> > require Bison and Flex. The problem here stems on the willingness to
> > be yacc/lex portable.
> [snip]
>
> Out of interest: Is it a ha
Hello.
Akim Demaille wrote:
[snip]
> I think a lot could be done to improve the interface provided that we
> require Bison and Flex. The problem here stems on the willingness to
> be yacc/lex portable.
[snip]
Out of interest: Is it a hard requirement that automake should work with lex,
yacc rath
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I don't think this is the right track, since flex and bison now
> generate more that just one file. Relying on something like -o is
> saner, but stdout is a dead end.
yacc & clones generate two files, lex one - unless you're referring to
some nonstanda
Richard> But won't that break the automake rules? They expect the lex
Richard> output file to be called $LEX_OUTPUT_ROOT. $LEX_OUTPUT_ROOT
Richard> is different on Linux than DJGPP (lex.yy vs. lexyy). If I
Richard> use %option outfile and %option prefix, it will work on one
Richard> platform,
