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 549B1BC69 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:59:52 +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 l3OIxnGA024827 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:59:51 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,448,1170595800"; d="scan'208";a="119035578" 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 04:29:46 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug in ocamlyacc From: skaller To: Francois.Pottier@inria.fr Cc: David Allsopp , OCaml List In-Reply-To: <20070424143258.GA12596@yquem.inria.fr> References: <001401c785f3$3af5e890$6a7ba8c0@treble> <1177392571.10100.46.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070424143258.GA12596@yquem.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:59:45 +1000 Message-Id: <1177441185.6172.49.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 462E53A5.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bug:01 ocamlyacc:01 0200,:01 parser:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 parsing:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 experimental:01 experimental:01 caml-list:01 pottier:01 francois:02 generated:05 On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:32 +0200, Francois Pottier wrote: > You could in principle pre-compile your parser on your own machine using > menhir and ship the generated files, so menhir wouldn't be a prerequisite. Yes, that is possible, assuming I can also ship any required libraries. > There are at least two reasons why Menhir isn't (yet) shipped with ocaml. > First, it produces code which is significantly larger than ocamlyacc's > tables. This might be a problem for some people, so we should add an option to > produce tables instead of code. OUCH. That's a significant complication. > Second, Menhir is still considered > experimental, and its input language could still evolve. For instance, its > treatment of errors and error recovery might be modified in the future, as > well as its treatment of priorities. Ocaml is still experimental. Its input language is evolving all the time. It wouldn't evolve much if it didn't have a user base. > Feel free to make suggestions about Menhir! They are most welcome, even > though, by lack of spare time, Menhir is not moving very fast. Sure! My thoughts would be: Menhir should really go to GLR. [Felix has GLR parsing built in :] -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net