Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!ditmela!yarra!bohra!ejp
From: ejp@bohra.cpg.oz (Esmond Pitt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Lex and initial start conditions
Message-ID: <117@bohra.cpg.oz>
Date: 1 Jun 90 00:53:47 GMT
References: <6342@crabcake> <1990May30.174745.1161@csrd.uiuc.edu> <116@bohra.cpg.oz> <1990May31.161800.11133@iwarp.intel.com>
Reply-To: ejp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (Esmond Pitt)
Organization: Computer Power Group, Melb, Australia
Lines: 19

In article <1990May31.161800.11133@iwarp.intel.com> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes:
>In article <116@bohra.cpg.oz>, ejp@bohra (Esmond Pitt) [me] writes:
>| 
>| Placing non-labelled rules before labelled rules is probably the single
>| most common error in writing LEX scripts, even after 15 years.
>| 
>| I don't know why.
>
>Because it is insufficient.  It's not "first match", but "longest
>match" that determines rule triggering.  ("first match" applies when
>the rules have the same length.)

How does this explain why people put labelled states after non-labelled
states, when the manual says not to?


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