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 RAA25633; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:18:17 +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 RAA25545 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:18:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from sunny.pacific.net.au (sunny.pacific.net.au [203.25.148.40]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g75FIED29863 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:18:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from wisma.pacific.net.au (wisma.pacific.net.au [210.23.129.72]) by sunny.pacific.net.au with ESMTP id g75FI8Ss004035; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from ozemail.com.au (ppp153.dyn17.pacific.net.au [61.8.17.153]) by wisma.pacific.net.au with ESMTP id BAA19288; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:18:06 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3D4E972D.6000706@ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:18:05 +1000 From: John Max Skaller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2.1) Gecko/20010901 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerd Stolpmann CC: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml-3.05: a performance experience References: <3D49FD72.68388864@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> <20020803123311.GA631@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> <3D4C965D.775F23DD@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> <20020804204532.GA9405@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Gerd Stolpmann wrote [XML parser] >Because the parser "pushes" the events to the application, this is a so-called >"push parser". > The client must supply callbacks. >There are plans for a "pull parser", too (the application calls >a next_event function to get the events), as this would allow to create >streams of XML events. > 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 believe there is a deep theoretical relationship between push and pull code -- some kind of categorical duality -- but I dont know precisely what it is .... despite being able to actually translate one to the other using Felix :-) I'd be very interested if anyone has any ideas on this. -- John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia. voice:61-2-9660-0850 ------------------- 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