Re: OK to mention if it runs on cygwin

2002-01-13 Thread Robert Collins
=== - Original Message - From: "Tim Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Robert Collins wrote: > > > If it's running on cygwin, I wouldn't object to it being discussed here. > > > > Rob > > > > > I'm sure others will object to my seizing upon your opening. No need to worry about others - I can

Re: OK to mention if it runs on cygwin

2002-01-13 Thread Charles Wilson
about how to translate my associated lex >>pre-processor to flex, I'd be grateful. >> > > And you think that a subject like "OK to mention if it runs on cygwin" will > attract hordes of flex/lex hackers to your cause? > > For the record, generic flex/lex

Re: OK to mention if it runs on cygwin

2002-01-13 Thread Christopher Faylor
ortran-compatible form which resembles C (ratfor). Ratfor can in turn be >translated to g77 with indentation, using all the f90 extensions to avoid >goto's. If anyone has suggestions about how to translate my associated lex >pre-processor to flex, I'd be grateful. And you

Re: OK to mention if it runs on cygwin

2002-01-13 Thread Tim Prince
Robert Collins wrote: > If it's running on cygwin, I wouldn't object to it being discussed here. > > Rob > > I'm sure others will object to my seizing upon your opening. I got struct running on cygwin yesterday, which demonstrates a significant improvement in Unix compatibility on cygwin.