Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!yarra!bohra!ejp
From: ejp@bohra.cpg.oz (Esmond Pitt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: LEX rule, anyone???
Message-ID: <231@bohra.cpg.oz>
Date: 8 Dec 89 00:33:23 GMT
References: <601@vice2utc.chalmers.se> <224@bohra.cpg.oz> <1989Dec6.180833.2985@twwells.com>
Reply-To: ejp@bohra.cpg.oz (Esmond Pitt)
Organization: Computer Power Group, Melb, Australia
Lines: 12

In article <1989Dec6.180833.2985@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>
> ... start states are not reliable with lex.

I keep hearing this, and I've never had any trouble with 'lex' whatever
(in 8 years) except that the scanners are SO SLOW. This is a good reason
to switch to 'flex' all right. But where's the unreliability? Symptoms?


-- 
Esmond Pitt, Computer Power Group
ejp@bohra.cpg.oz