Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: > Am 11.01.2013 23:25, schrieb David Kastrup: >> David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Noeck <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> why does compiling this code fail to compile with lilypond? >>>> >>>> \version "2.16.0" >>>> { a } >>>> % >>>> >>> No, the problem is that there _is_ no last line. You have an EOF in >>> the middle of the line (not every editor will even allow producing >>> that). >>> >>> One would need to non-trivially rewrite comment matching in the >>> lexer to get either a nicer error message or just silently a line >>> comment even though the line does not end. >> Ok, apparently I lied. >> >> <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3102> >> > Hm. I never managed to understand these expression matching hieroglyphs. > But is it right that the 'new' side of the diff does look much simpler > than the old one?
I said I lied. The old patterns were seemingly not all written while trusting Flex to pick the longest matching pattern. And writing a pattern that will only match when there is an EOF at a certain place is not really feasible in Flex (you can explicitly match EOF only when <<EOF>> is the whole pattern, so you'd need to juggle with semantic states). But if Flex would not use the pattern under any other circumstance (because in all other circumstances a longer pattern would match), that's just as good. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
