reflex v5.4

What's new?

• natively support non-blocking FILE* input when assigned to a reflex::Input object for lexer input scanning and regex search/matching, i.e. for fcntl O_NONBLOCK the regex matchers will wait for input to become available again instead of giving up with an error; changed reflex::Input::Handler see documentation how to define a handler and set IO timeouts for example
• remove compiler warnings #227 #228
• fuzzy matches() edit distance #226
• updated mini-C compiler and Lua transpiler examples to work around GNU C++ compiler errors and warnings

Please read

I'm looking for help and suggestions by those who are smarter than me when it comes to Wikipedia matters. I feel I should not stay silent about this. Staying silent feels like an admission that I'm in the wrong when it is actually unjust. Someone claiming to be an editor on Wikipedia nominated the RE/flex article for deletion as not suitable for Wikipedia and then just deleted it without any discussion and participation by others. Discussions on Wikipedia talk pages are meant to reach a consensus on deletion or inclusion, so that others have a chance to participate and offer meaningful evidence. He said that RE/flex is just not notable, that I have a "conflict of interest", and there is only one article on Google scholar that mentions it (and a Spanish BS thesis I believe). However, there are several peer-reviewed articles referencing RE/flex (see link to my evidence below). More importantly, there are quite a few serious projects that use RE/flex. And the project garnered stars (these are not fake stars by bots or paid-for stars, I hate dishonesty like that). I'm an academic by heart and like to contribute something useful. I'm not doing this for money or stars.

I left a note on the Talk page explaining my thoughts on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_van_Engelen#Nomination_of_RE/flex_for_deletion

Here is the link to the deletion paragraph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RE/flex

There are thousands of articles like the RE/flex article posted on Wikipedia. I have done nothing wrong and nothing in the article is objectionable, since nobody has said anything specific about the article.

If you use and value the RE/flex project and also think that this deletion decision is not based on evidence (see "discussion"), then please leave a comment on one or both of these links. Or let me know how I can do a better job by commenting on the RE/flex v5.4 discussion page.

Thank you!