Good enough. Thanks!
On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Boehm, Swen wrote:
> I know for sure that it works with 2.5.35 but I am confident that it will
> work with 2.5.33.
> I committed the changes to trunk.
>
> -- Swen
>
> On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with bumping
I know for sure that it works with 2.5.35 but I am confident that it will work
with 2.5.33.
I committed the changes to trunk.
-- Swen
On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I'm fine with bumping up the minimum version of flex required. I just want
> to have a clue what to bump it u
I'm fine with bumping up the minimum version of flex required. I just want to
have a clue what to bump it up *to*. :-)
If you're confident that 2.5.33 is a good number, that's probably good enough
for me.
Can you find someone at ORNL to commit? I think that this would be fine on the
trunk a
I don't know if it works with 2.5.4 for sure but I have seen lexer files that
handle differences between 2.5.4 and 2.5.33 and they don't handle %option noun
put differently. I would assume it will work. Maybe someone still using 2.5.4
can validate this.
-- Swen
On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Jeff
Nifty -- I had no idea that %unput existed. Do you know how far back it works
in flex versions? We currently say on the web site that developers need at
least flex 2.5.4 to build. Will using an %unput (say, in trunk and v1.5)
require a new minimum flex version?
On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:55 PM, B
