From: eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se (Martin Stromberg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Flex/Byacc file naming question
Date: 28 May 2002 12:25:38 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Erisoft AB, Sweden
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <acvt02$4pt$1@antares.lu.erisoft.se>
References: <3CF2C3DE DOT B8E4EB3A AT hfx DOT andara DOT com> <3CF36807 DOT 17FEA154 AT hfx DOT andara DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lws256.lu.erisoft.se
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ron Schofield (rschofie AT hfx DOT andara DOT com) wrote:
:   Just curious.. Why would that have anything to do with naming conventions.

Good question. Not much after mulling it over.

I think my train of thought was something like: DJGPP was made from
GNU stuff. Most of the packages are GNU stuff and probably the first
yacc alternative ported was the GNU one (speculation). Thus is has had
the most time to mature and find those little snags.

: 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,

But for DJGPP the standard naming convention is the one from flex (due
to non-LFN FAT limitations). However I'm not an expert on these
matters.

: shouldn't one of them be changed for consistency? Are there any other DJGPP

Yes, byacc IMO.

: Official Releases that have this problem?

Don't know. Possible.

Please don't top post.


Right,

						MartinS