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 VAA21475; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:13:48 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA21656 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:13:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i58JDhSH004208 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:13:45 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp114-11.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.114.11]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i58JDc4Y080978; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:43:41 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Efficient C++ Interfacing? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Fritz Wuehler Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <3a4641a78693342be4a5f7172e068f53@remailer.frell.eu.org> References: <3a4641a78693342be4a5f7172e068f53@remailer.frell.eu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1086722017.16811.901.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 09 Jun 2004 05:13:38 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40C60FE7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 interfacing:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 bootstrapped:01 unambiguous:01 lalr:01 9660:01 glebe:01 compilers:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 nsw:01 syntax:02 snail:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 01:02, Fritz Wuehler wrote: > > I want to process data with OCaml > > Oh, I thought Felix wanted to be bootstrapped. It does, eventually. however, to do that I would have to write some very complex code in an unstable language (Felix). [At the moment, Ocaml is better for writing compilers in :] > Since Felix is so C++ friendly it should be > easy to drop OpenC++ in to help bootstrapping. > Seems a waste to write a C++ parser in Ocaml > that has to be rewritten in Felix later. Sure but you're effectively suggesting to use OpenC++ and which means building a representation using C++ code. > This thing was designed to do what Felix > does, make (C++)++ languages. It can also > for example deal with Qt's non-C++ issues, > which is just another (C++)++. Felix isn't a (C++)++ language syntactically: the syntax is unambiguous LALR(1) .. :) You are right I suspect I could write the wrapper generator in C++ instead of Ocaml, and then leverage OpenC++ to do the parsing. There are also several other C++ parsers including part of CERN's ROOT system. However this complicates the tool chain quite a lot. The wrapper generator excluding the parser is only a few hundred lines of code at the moment. The C parser is a bit bigger, but I didn't write it. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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