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 JAA12001; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:34:08 +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 JAA12853 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:34:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f857Y7906426; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:34:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05810; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:34:07 +0200 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:34:07 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: Christian RINDERKNECHT Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Different types of streams Message-ID: <20010905093407.E5393@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20010826202317.A9010@aimlin> <20010827114906.K13152@verdot.inria.fr> <20010905030335.E15035@hugo.int-evry.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: <20010905030335.E15035@hugo.int-evry.fr>; from rinderkn@hugo.int-evry.fr on Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:03:35AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Salut Christian, On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:03:35AM +0200, Christian RINDERKNECHT wrote: > 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. When I said streams are not so interesting, I meant only the ones built with [< >], not the ones built with Stream.from, Stream.of_string and Stream.of_channel. And of course, I am still using parsers, especially in the grammars of Camlp4 using streams as input. > 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? Yes. Is it a problem? -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- 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