Régis Décamps
Régis Décamps
@lsf37 So actually, there is a problem using `@SuppressWarnings` on the class: There can be only one such annotation, which can be problematic if the custom header wants to define...
IIRC, this can only be done with code generated with 1.8.0, hence can only be done in 1.9.0
I'm afraid not. I tried to update to jflex-1.8 in the corp repository, and I get a number of errors. Sorry that I didn't take the time to investigate.
So, the scope of the suppress warning (either via `@SuppressWarnings` or via javacop `-X:ep` is only about FallThrough. I'm running a presubmit now.
There are remaining violations on 1.8.0. ``` jflex/java/jflex/core/LexScan.java:2483: error: [FallThrough] Execution may fall through from the previous case; add a `// fall through` comment before this line if it was...
Or use the uberjar that contains everything.
I think using a timestamp is a bad practice, but it seems Maven can't do better. LGTM.
As far as I understand, this will fix #720. I've updated the change description.
Thanks for the detailed description. Yes, I want to get rid of sysout comparison We should test behaviour, not check against modifications. You have a good point, that it would...
Thanks for filing the issue. I also realised the problem it causes on the compilation in https://github.com/jflex-de/jflex/issues/453#issuecomment-605464230 We have a few options - Add `@Generated` (#453) which allows users to...