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 LAA02470; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:29:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA02194 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:29:40 +0200 (MET DST) 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 DAA09683 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hugo.int-evry.fr (hugo.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.81]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f8513hL27747; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from (rinderkn@localhost) by hugo.int-evry.fr (8.8.8/jtpda-5.3) id DAA15350 ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:36 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:35 +0200 From: Christian RINDERKNECHT To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Different types of streams Message-ID: <20010905030335.E15035@hugo.int-evry.fr> References: <20010826202317.A9010@aimlin> <20010827114906.K13152@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <20010827114906.K13152@verdot.inria.fr>; from Daniel de Rauglaudre on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:49:06AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi Daniel, On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:49:06AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > > I am the implementor of the streams. Actually, I have never been interested > in the streams themselves, but more in parsing. [...] > > I am not sure that streams built with [< >] are so interesting, especially > if they are destinated to a real parser. As you may remember, I wrote a fairly complex and big parser (~4000 lines) using the streams [< >]. The story is that I first computed by hand the EBNF grammar, and then the streams [< >] were of great help because their syntax is close to the BNF one. This made maintenance easier too. As an aside: the performance of my parser was not a concern, feasability was the main challenge. I nevertheless understand it can be an important issue. I understood there was a plan to remove the [< >] from OCaml, and to request users using camlp4, is it correct? Best regards, Christian ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Rinderknecht Phone +33 (0)1 60 76 44 43 Institut National des Télécommunications Fax +33 (0)1 60 76 47 11 Département Logiciels Réseaux (LOR) WWW 9, Rue Charles Fourier, F-91011 Évry Cedex ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr