From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 761CD7EF5E for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:07:39 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:WJY66RfDTmXAO4qjf91BLmu5lGMj4u6mDksu8pMizoh2WeGdxc6/bR7h7PlgxGXEQZ/co6odzbGH6+a+ACdQsd6oizMrSNR0TRgLiMEbzUQLIfWuLgnFFsPsdDEwB89YVVVorDmROElRH9viNRWJ+iXhpQAbFhi3DwdpPOO9QteU1JXvkb7rsM2DKyxzxxOFKYtoKxu3qQiD/uI3uqBFbpgL9x3Sv3FTcP5Xz247bXianhL7+9vitMU7q3cY6Lod8JtsWKP7cqAPZyheHjAnezQ57cvquB2FRxaC4GkYU00biABBHwnc8Ry8VZen4QXgse8o4zGbJ8rtBZ0wWDO66LpvTwSg3DwKMz8+6GbKosN1haNf5hmmokoskMbvfIiJOa8mLevmdtQASD8ZUw== Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=seliopou@gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=seliopou@gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail-lf0-f41.google.com Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of seliopou@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.215.41; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="seliopou@gmail.com"; x-sender="seliopou@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of seliopou@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.215.41; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="seliopou@gmail.com"; x-sender="seliopou@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-lf0-f41.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.215.41; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="seliopou@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-lf0-f41.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BNAgDZN5ZXhinXVdFdhREGrSOGOocBhh0CgTgHOxEBAQEBAQEBAREBAQEICwsJGS+CMhWCFgEEARIRHQEbHQEDAQsGBQQBBjcCAiIBEQEFARwGEyKHcwEDDwiaB4EyPjGLO4FqgloFhCgKGScNVIM6AQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBARkCBhCGGoRNh0GCWgEEmSiJEoVdjz+OYhIegQ80gjyBcyAyiQ0BAQE X-IPAS-Result: A0BNAgDZN5ZXhinXVdFdhREGrSOGOocBhh0CgTgHOxEBAQEBAQEBAREBAQEICwsJGS+CMhWCFgEEARIRHQEbHQEDAQsGBQQBBjcCAiIBEQEFARwGEyKHcwEDDwiaB4EyPjGLO4FqgloFhCgKGScNVIM6AQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBARkCBhCGGoRNh0GCWgEEmSiJEoVdjz+OYhIegQ80gjyBcyAyiQ0BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,419,1464645600"; d="scan'208,217";a="227895490" Received: from mail-lf0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 25 Jul 2016 18:07:38 +0200 Received: by mail-lf0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b199so131999725lfe.0 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:07:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aGPwqMhTAXVzMGra2PeGMugbgoK4SQFYmRiuxmNOqZM=; b=oO2eJV8CiWRtUknE5TZLFeIVc9tP25F/qkjOptVYkxeQS7BTOXZymq4DK+jsOYxwxz tHwi2kECwWeJrXM0fVNE0ec4eveffSs6rKL3ZKAVDDEWM2NkDlw7JO56fiabIQGhqHBO E4rd2WG/Q451EvTt1xFpJPytlC7VMI162zjixgwqg1OM9N+hEtuwOdSNHSDOmUrPSRHZ Q6HsV0iZQm64u17ewd5ssqq6Gg34eCQv3yJUXHhpRgZdqkgy+eKfarmTfEZtO5H1vDR2 7bYC/lLbDr0a+KpHTDV9tWp428RXnx0Qj0OiNNSUFdgb2FC9X9pMITEN3bCPpq2mhu8b 7hsQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aGPwqMhTAXVzMGra2PeGMugbgoK4SQFYmRiuxmNOqZM=; b=L3ui1fJVe0aCHZtIfbRgiDjFCt4/+Ou+/5F88DRGScS1R455Ac5gdsXyxm/S8odwzH LhXtzGoVFFjyIuNfpLG9sqp41BKZ80LlThDFgahKhDyybs9x++sGf7Ozt3jIGnfmRV6F JhXbOvz8S0I4x1tuSPQngAJo/WA8SCloAvaASvFebhQV1TSwDxhTkI+lEHgxgGA10xso I70JdupXnJBEQ18k2bMCw+5T3cbPeuU+S4IDrVrZVTFdcelY8lItfqeNzXQ5EAZpiEYc v2UsNtA9Lfv/wUytMA4WGqKj6PS/14zqHCD7dF6iEvsyRFUrXaUUWSv8NnnAk6nMTsGI LDeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouucojM8mMQKBqLWyEQjqluvukVsGkugMcymfmWQtlkSdGbbpYrGSox+ws5bdUpFXsriaZJfGqi174t6yQ== X-Received: by 10.46.33.147 with SMTP id h19mr7654193lji.29.1469462857802; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:07:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.87.136 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <169BD7F8D4244E4DBEA9861FD6EDFB00@erratique.ch> References: <8B3345BC17954C9F8DC59E1C0AFBE09D@erratique.ch> <169BD7F8D4244E4DBEA9861FD6EDFB00@erratique.ch> From: Spiros Eliopoulos Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:07:18 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= Cc: OCaml Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142bc6ca66996053877fbfe Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ANN: angstrom --001a1142bc6ca66996053877fbfe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Daniel B=C3=BCnzli wrote: > Le lundi, 25 juillet 2016 =C3=A0 16:15, Spiros Eliopoulos a =C3=A9crit : > > If the client will always accept any parse correction from the parser, > then it should accumulate all errors and return them along with the parse > result. > > No, in practice you want to be able to report errors before having seen > all the input. So in this situation, the main parse succeeds with errors corrections that are going to be logged somewhere. If something besides logging would be done with the errors, it would fall into one of the other cases described above. The latency difference is on the order of milliseconds, maybe seconds, depending on the application. It's not nearly enough time to make a difference in whatever log analysis process they would be fed into, whether it's inspection by a human (certainly) or some other automated process (they all typically include a ton of latency already). -Spiros E. --001a1142bc6ca66996053877fbfe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Daniel B=C3=BCnzli <= daniel.bue= nzli@erratique.ch> wrote:
<= span class=3D"">Le lundi, 25 juillet 2016 =C3=A0 16:15, Spiros Eliopoulos a= =C3=A9crit :
> If the client will always accept any parse correction from the parser,= then it should accumulate all errors and return them along with the parse = result.

No, in practice you want to be able to report errors before having s= een all the input.

So in this situation, the main par= se succeeds with errors corrections that are going to be logged somewhere. = If something besides logging would be done with the errors, it would fall i= nto one of the other cases described above. The latency difference is on th= e order of milliseconds, maybe seconds, depending on the application. It= 9;s not nearly enough time to make a difference in whatever log analysis pr= ocess they would be fed into, whether it's inspection by a human (certa= inly) or some other automated process (they all typically include a ton of = latency already).

-Spiros E.
--001a1142bc6ca66996053877fbfe--