LEX rule, anyone???

[T. William Wells]

In article <21182 at mimsy.umd.edu> chris at mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
: At any rate, perhaps what Bill Wells is remembering is lex taking
: something that it apparently should not have because it was in some
: state other than INITIAL.  Or it could be yet another lex bug....

I'll argue for the bug. Simply switching to flex made the problem
go away.

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill at twwells.com