From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E10BC69 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:25:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l3OIPMZb017816 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:25:24 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,448,1170595800"; d="scan'208";a="119021953" Received: from ppp8-148.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.8.148]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2007 03:55:20 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug in ocamlyacc From: skaller To: Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20070424122338.ozkvhzfhckcskkc4@webmail.etu.upmc.fr> References: <001401c785f3$3af5e890$6a7ba8c0@treble> <1177392571.10100.46.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070424122338.ozkvhzfhckcskkc4@webmail.etu.upmc.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:25:18 +1000 Message-Id: <1177439118.6172.18.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 462E4B92.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bug:01 ocamlyacc:01 0200,:01 pons:01 camlyacc:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 ocamlyacc:01 camlyacc:01 swapped:01 ocaml:01 ffau:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 12:23 +0200, Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS wrote: > Bonjour, > > > I won't use Menhir for that reason either.[...] > > Come on, Skaller. You know as well as everyone that adding a tool that > is not mature enough to the standard distribution is a bad idea. Not if it is optional, like the ocamlbuild tool for example. > Mehnir is clearly the "official" candidate for replacement of > CamlYacc, without yet being mandatory. This gives you the time to > port, criticize and ask for improvements. Look the mess that happened > with CamlP4 which didn't follow this pattern. There do indeed appear to be some issues with camlp4. However what was done was the 'right thing' despite that -- IMHO of course. First: few would have tested it, given the incompatibilities, it it were not forced onto the market. Second: Ocaml 3.10 is still in beta, and the author(s) of camlp4 *needed* the feedback and participation from the community. Third: the community wanted a better camlp4: this is the price, and I believe most people using camlp4 are willing to help and get it working. Fourth: it had to be done sometime, and I would guess that there was no technical choice but a painful change. However with Menhir, the issues aren't so bad because it doesn't yet need to replace Ocamlyacc, just be available as an alternative. > So instead of being complaining because Mehnir is not yet in the > standard distribution, I'm not complaining, but stating my reasons why I think it should be > you should be porting your CamlYacc code to > ensure that when the tools are swapped, Menhir will make your code > simpler, faster and cleaner. .. and also making it clear, I hope, why I won't be using it in my product until it is. Unfortunately my team also has limited resources. I already tried Menhir and provided some feedback. I'm supportive of it. But I cannot convert my production code to use a third party library unless I can include the source in my product. Felix doesn't use any external third party libraries: it uses the system Ocaml and C++ libraries, and it uses Cil/Frontc, Elkhound and Tre .. which are included in the Felix system as source code and built by the Felix build system. I might consider doing that with Menhir if the licence were FFAU like MIT/BSD/Boost/Creative Commons. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net