From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:12:41 -0500
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Replacements for lex
Message-ID: <20070119191241.GB17033@augusta.math.psu.edu>
References: <7871fcf50701191058w7ef924cer224b9c8e4f63321b@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7871fcf50701191058w7ef924cer224b9c8e4f63321b@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 05ef2060-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 01:58:06PM -0500, Joel Salomon wrote:
> Has anyone had success with lexer-generators other than lex under Plan
> 9?  I'm taking a compilers class this semester and I'd like to do as
> much work under Plan 9 as possible.
>
> I looked around online and found re2c, which looked interesting except
> it's written in C++.
>
> For languages sufficiently like C, is regexp(2) suitable?

I think that most people roll their own lexical analyzers under Plan 9.
That's typically not too hard to do, though.

	- Dan C.