29 Apr
2010
29 Apr
'10
4:33 p.m.
Martin Mares <mj@ucw.cz> wrote on 2010/04/29 17:57:44:
Hello!
Right, neither is an ideal fix but at least mine is "correct" and doesn't cause REJECT to be defined inside flex, causing warnings.
I don't understand your reasoning, you rather keep the buggy REJECT instead of renaming the bison token REJECT to Reject because it doesn't look as "pretty" anymore?
Why exactly do you consider the REJECT buggy? Does the documentation of flex forbid redefinition of REJECT?