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 JAA20630; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:00:07 +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 JAA20804 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:00:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i67702EV017435 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:00:04 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp214-48.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [203.122.214.48]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i676xkHY070513; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:29:49 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Efficient C++ Interfacing? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A3ukasz?= Dobrek , caml-list In-Reply-To: <200407070402.43790.exa@kablonet.com.tr> References: <3a4641a78693342be4a5f7172e068f53@remailer.frell.eu.org> <200406282258.24202.exa@kablonet.com.tr> <1088472936.18587.154.camel@pelican.wigram> <200407070402.43790.exa@kablonet.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1089183585.29648.58.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 07 Jul 2004 16:59:45 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40EB9F72.002 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 eray:01 ozkural:01 2004:99 eray:01 ozkural:01 antlr:01 antlr:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 11:02, Eray Ozkural wrote: > On Tuesday 29 June 2004 04:35, skaller wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 05:58, Eray Ozkural wrote: > > > The only sad thing about these systems is that they are not > > > written in ocaml. :) > > > > An Earley parser is easy to make, RD even easier > > although it's a bit harder in that case to get the > > grammar right. > I'd studied Earley parsers in an NLP course. I've no idea if it would be so > much easier than an ANTLR or OpenC++ parser, though. ANTLR and OpenC++ have several disadvantages .. not being written in Ocaml is a rather nasty one for you and me. Not having control of the project is also an issue, especially if you're building something which you want to give to clients who have to build it in turn .. -- 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