From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <312c73e5b2edd1e464cb971a39bd334e@coraid.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Replacements for lex
From: Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:13:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <7871fcf50701191058w7ef924cer224b9c8e4f63321b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 05f549ea-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

My suggestion is just to write scanners by hand.  I've written dozens
and they take only a few minutes.  While a half hour seems long
compared to the speed of an automaticly generated scanner, the time
difference over the total project is quite small.  And besides.  You
want to learn how to write compilers.


> 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?
>
> --Joel