On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:49:44PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tradiotionally, { } pattersn are not part of awk re's.
> >
> > Posix added them, but we do not include them afaik. Gnu awk only accepts
> > them if given an extra arg (--posix or --re-interval).
> >
> > I think this should be documented.
>
> Although there is a clear theory about "regular expressions", I have the
> impression that there is no standard syntax. One needs to read again and
> again the documentation of programs that use them.
>
> I am just missing a way to reference in a (f)lex action a previously
> matched subexpression (like with \m in a substitution with ed).
>
> Why is this? Because lex is so old? And what does people do in these
> cases?
>
> Rodrigo
Refering to subpatterns is not available in flex. I suppose it is not
available since it would require a more complex re engine.
Interpretation of the lexical value should be "hand-crafted".
-Otto
