From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D108BB81 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:27:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.barettadeit.com (h213-255-109-130.albacom.net [213.255.109.130] (may be forged)) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jBEARIuG006390 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:27:19 +0100 Received: from [10.0.0.10] (alex.barettalocal.com [10.0.0.10]) by mail.barettadeit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0E99840; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:28:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <439FF395.3090503@barettadeit.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:27:33 +0100 From: Alessandro Baretta User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francois.Pottier@inria.fr Cc: Caml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANNOUNCE] Alpha release of Menhir, an LR(1) parser generator for ocaml References: <20051212175838.GA8502@yquem.inria.fr> <1134540495.8980.63.camel@rosella> <20051214090427.GB1330@yquem.inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <20051214090427.GB1330@yquem.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 439FF386.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; baretta:01 baretta:01 barettadeit:01 caml-list:01 parser:01 ocaml:01 ocamlyacc:01 recursive:01 parser:01 late-binding:01 recursion:01 barettadeit:01 xcaml:01 xcaml:01 asxcaml:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Francois Pottier wrote: > Considering the answer to the first question, the second > question would not arise at all if Menhir produced tables, like > ocamlyacc. However, Menhir does not produce tables; it > compiles the automaton down to a bunch of mutually recursive > functions. We have not yet scientifically assessed the > difference in size between tables and code, but a few > quick experiments indicate that it is reasonable (the > code is larger than the tables by a factor of two or > three). > In general, I like the approach, as it can easily scale to an extensible parser generator by late-binding the recursion through a record/array/table of functions. Have you thought about this at all? Alex -- ********************************************************************* http://www.barettadeit.com/ Baretta DE&IT A division of Baretta SRL tel. +39 02 370 111 55 fax. +39 02 370 111 54 Our technology: The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml) The FreerP Project