Re: [Caml-list] Different types of streams

[Dave Mason <dmason@sarg.ryerson.ca>]

(I've cc'ed everyone because for some reason my postings rarely make
it to the mailing list, and if they do they take days.)

>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:30:21 +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> said:

> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:43:58PM +0930, Alex Cowie wrote:
>> The convenience of having this parsing facility within the Ocaml
>> syntax should not be underestimated particularly for program
>> development under the toplevel.

I want to re-iterate this.  I have several 10's of lines of caml code,
and probably 1/2 of the programs I write use the [< >] parsing.

> Under the toplevel, you can #load "camlp4o.cma"

Honestly, I don't really understand the implications of the
preprocessor.  If that is literally all I have to do and then I can
use the syntax, that is probably fine (and if it's just as easy from
the command line and for ocamlopt).  But I guess I don't understand
why it won't be the default if it's really that trivial.

> Remember that the streams and parsers in OCaml have a very bad
> implementation, not tail recursive and not optimized. We regularly
> receive bug reports about their slowness and stack overflows when
> they are used.

I don't think anyone is arguing against fixing the implementation, but
the [< >] parsers are much more convenient/natural than yacc-like
parsers for many people and purposes.  Even a switch that let me
choose LALR or LL parsing but used the same syntax (as some C-based
tools do - see (I think) ANTLR) would seem to address this.

../Dave
-------------------
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