Message-ID: <3CF36807.17FEA154@hfx.andara.com>
From: Ron Schofield <rschofie AT hfx DOT andara DOT com>
Organization: Schofield Computer Organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Flex/Byacc file naming question
References: <3CF2C3DE DOT B8E4EB3A AT hfx DOT andara DOT com> <acvf4k$sjk$2 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 18
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:20:39 -0300
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.222.4.124
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 1022584900 24.222.4.124 (Tue, 28 May 2002 07:21:40 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:21:40 EDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Martin,

  Just curious.. Why would that have anything to do with naming conventions.
If both Byacc and Flex are available for download as DJGPP Official Releases,
and since Byacc uses the standard naming convention and flex does not,
shouldn't one of them be changed for consistency? Are there any other DJGPP
Official Releases that have this problem?

Ron

Martin Stromberg wrote:

> Because Byacc isn't by GNU? Compare with what bison does.
>
> Right,
>
>                                                 MartinS