From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA28533; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:24:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA27290 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:24:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.76]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g75GOJP14786 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:24:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (CENTRAL-CITY-CARRIER-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.72]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA19513; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA06674; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cc1003186f (bgp574586bgs.eatntn01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.15.36]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id MAA27308; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <021e01c23c9c$86d0c9b0$240f2744@cc1003186f> From: "Mike Lin" To: "John Max Skaller" , "Gerd Stolpmann" Cc: References: <3D49FD72.68388864@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> <20020803123311.GA631@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> <3D4C965D.775F23DD@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> <20020804204532.GA9405@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> <3D4E972D.6000706@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-3.05: a performance experience Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:24:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I'm intrigued by the relationship between these two parsers. In particular, > note that my Felix compiler takes 'pull' code, and automatically > translates it > to the much more efficient 'push' model: ie. it switches the client/server > relationship around, a process I call control inversion. I'm just curious if you could elaborate on in what respect a push parser is "much more efficient"? From my experience pull parsers tend to be easier to use because they don't impose an event-driven model on the driver program, and also it is trivial to build a push parser on top of a pull parser. -Mike ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners