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 TAA05548; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:54:49 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA05158 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:54:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2HItEKW019447 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:55:14 +0100 Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (markus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i2HIskHn025400; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:54:46 +0100 Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id i2HIsktr025399; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:54:46 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:54:46 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: Agustin Valverde Ramos Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Better option to read a file Message-ID: <20040317185446.GE18178@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Agustin Valverde Ramos , caml-list@inria.fr References: <0AEE851F-7832-11D8-910D-000A95CED312@mac.com> <20040317174632.GD18178@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 expr:01 expr:01 simpler:01 logical:02 mottl:02 mottl:02 wrote:03 suppose:03 markus:04 markus:04 oefai:05 oefai:05 lists:91 modify:08 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 158 On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Agustin Valverde Ramos wrote: > I want to work with conjunctions and disjunctions of lists: > > | And of expr list > | Or of expr list > > Is it hard/possible to modify the rest of the code? I suppose you prefer this representation, because you want to stratify logical expressions. The the other representation is otherwise easier to handle. It's possible and not too hard to make this extension (a bit tedious though). > > (note: the topmost expression also needs parenthesis!). E.g.: > > Why? is it possible to release this restriction? It's simpler this way. You just need to add the parenthesis-free expressions to the "main" nonterminal if you don't want this. Regards, Markus -- Markus Mottl http://www.oefai.at/~markus markus@oefai.at ------------------- 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