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 SAA28782; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:54:10 +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 SAA29492 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:54:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from str12.sobor.org (adsl-63-198-183-99.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.198.183.99]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g75Gs8D03186 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:54:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by str12.sobor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B9E99860; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020805.095353.74736292.avv@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> To: mikelin@MIT.EDU Cc: skaller@ozemail.com.au, info@gerd-stolpmann.de, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-3.05: a performance experience From: "Alexander V.Voinov" In-Reply-To: <021e01c23c9c$86d0c9b0$240f2744@cc1003186f> References: <20020804204532.GA9405@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> <3D4E972D.6000706@ozemail.com.au> <021e01c23c9c$86d0c9b0$240f2744@cc1003186f> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi All, It looks like it's time to introduce continuations in OCaml :-). Alexander From: "Mike Lin" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-3.05: a performance experience Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:24:07 -0400 > > > I'm intrigued by the relationship between these two parsers. In > particular, > > note that my Felix compiler takes 'pull' code, and automatically > > translates it > > to the much more efficient 'push' model: ie. it switches the client/server > > relationship around, a process I call control inversion. > > I'm just curious if you could elaborate on in what respect a push parser is > "much more efficient"? From my experience pull parsers tend to be easier to > use because they don't impose an event-driven model on the driver program, > and also it is trivial to build a push parser on top of a pull parser. > > -Mike > > ------------------- > To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners