From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09DEBB91 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0RLe5Sr024244 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:05 +0100 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 WAA08995 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp.syd.swiftdsl.com.au (smtp.syd.swiftdsl.com.au [218.214.224.138]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id j0RLe1sG024219 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:40:03 +0100 Received: (qmail 9689 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2005 21:40:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO coltrane.mega-nerd.net) (218.214.64.136) by smtp.syd.swiftdsl.com.au with SMTP; 27 Jan 2005 21:40:01 -0000 Received: from coltrane (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coltrane.mega-nerd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B7F7C7B86 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:39:56 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:39:56 +1100 From: Erik de Castro Lopo To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] yacc style Message-Id: <20050128083956.7dc72787.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: <875c7e0705012712177a9e852@mail.gmail.com> References: <875c7e0705012712177a9e852@mail.gmail.com> Organization: Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41F95FB5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41F95FB1.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 parser:01 parser:01 nospam:98 ...:98 imperative:01 checking:01 argument:01 tree:02 tree:02 semantic:02 semantic:02 face:97 parse:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:17:13 -0500 Chris King wrote: > Is it considered better style to > instead have the parser return a parse tree, and then use that to > generate the imperative structure, Yes, normally the parser generates a parse tree which is then passed to the semantic analyser for semantic checking. Erik-- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "... a discussion of C++'s strengths and flaws always sounds like an argument about whether one should face north or east when one is sacrificing one's goat to the rain god." -- Thant Tessman