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 AAA20992; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:04:27 +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 AAA21404 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:04:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from plinky.bolt-action.com (node-d8e9cca3.powerinter.net [216.233.204.163]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g14N4OX28541; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:04:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from checkerlap.d6.com (node-d8e9cca2.powerinter.net [216.233.204.162]) by plinky.bolt-action.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g14N6bW11243; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:06:38 -0800 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020204150243.037b5af0@arda.pair.com> X-Sender: checker@arda.pair.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:04:06 -0800 To: Markus Mottl , Daniel de Rauglaudre From: Chris Hecker Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20020204162513.GA22263@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> References: <20020204164154.D2338@verdot.inria.fr> <9BE7FA48-1771-11D6-A336-003065BDAA76@ece.ucsb.edu> <15454.38553.300800.53941@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20020204155242.B2338@verdot.inria.fr> <20020204150839.GE14738@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020204164154.D2338@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >> I don't propose to start with the normal syntax because it is too much >> difficult to parse with recursive descent technology. I managed to do >> it but thanks to hacks. >Sounds reasonable. For people who want to learn more about >advantages/disadvantages of LL-parsers (= recursive descent) vs. >LALR-parsers (= ocamlyacc), see this article: I forgot to ask, why is it necessary to move to LL? Is it the error handling, or is there something about the dynamicness of camlp4 that needs a RD parser to hook into? I'm not a compiler expert, but I've read about it the differences a bit, but I'd like the expert opinions. :) Chris ------------------- 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