[ragel-users] Re: fexec bug in v5.15?

Adrian Thurston thurs... at cs.queensu.ca
Fri Nov 10 05:19:35 UTC 2006

Haha, indeed, a "pure" language definition free of grotesque 
expection-to-the-rule clauses would make me very happy :)


Carlos Antunes wrote:
> On 11/9/06, Adrian Thurston <thurs... at cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> If you were to take the flag-based approach, it would be better to use
>> it to make fhold safe in pattern actions by using a variable to indicate
>> that after the pattern has been consumed and p is consistent, then shift
>> it back one. Though I guess that has the same effect as what you're
>> saying. I've never been a fan of the flag-based approach to implementing
>> the fsm statements in action code, but maybe I should reconsider in this
>> case.
> Ah! Here's a difference between a computer scientist (you) and an
> engineer (me): the computer scientist wants the code to be "pure", and
> the engineer just want things to "work"! :-)
> Carlos

More information about the ragel-users mailing list