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 OAA03834; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:37:52 +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 OAA03346 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:37:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from mrwall.kal.com (mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g16DboT08730 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:37:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236] (HELO localhost) by mrwall.kal.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener) id 0000_004f_3c61_32ac_9bc1; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:42:04 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Caml-list] Camlp4 "vs" JSE X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8E31D6933A2FE64F8AE3CC1381EEDCE7232D99@NT.kal.com> Thread-Topic: Camlp4 "vs" JSE Thread-Index: AcGvE7Wj6+BpKnUEQaedIP4VF9OcGQ== From: "Dave Berry" To: Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Two ex-colleagues of mine published a paper in last year's OOPSLA about a macro system for Java. In their paper they briefly mention Camlp4 in the "related work" section. They say that because Camlp4 is grammar-based, it can't guarantee parseability. Is this true, or did they not understand Camlp4 properly? Does anyone here have any more to contribute comparing the two approaches? The authors in question are Jonathan Bachrach and Keith Playford, and the title of their paper is something like "The Java Syntactic Extender", OOPSLA 2001. Dave. ------------------- 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