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 PAA22101; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:32:31 +0100 (MET) 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 PAA21055 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:32:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from cgpsrv1.cis.mcmaster.ca (univmail.CIS.mcmaster.ca [130.113.64.46]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0OEWTr16699 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:32:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from [24.112.23.91] (HELO marvin) by cgpsrv1.cis.mcmaster.ca (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 29892864; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:32:28 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Jacques Carette" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [Caml-list] camlp4 vs. ocamllex/yacc? Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:32:37 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200301241415.44042.da209@cam.ac.uk> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I am unsure if this solution satisfies all of your requirements, but all of the functionality you mention below is already available in Maple, both interactively and in batch. And for a much larger set of functions than you'd likely ever have the patience to work with... And the Units package (as of Maple 7) includes more units/dimensions than any sane human being would ever care to know about [the author of that package was, umm, thorough, right, that's it :-) ]. If nothing else, you should at least use Maple to test any eventual implementation you find. Jacques PS: disclaimer - I used to be affiliated with Maple, but no longer am. PPS: even the set of 'usual' units forms a rather nasty poset, much more complicated than one would imagine. Consistency checking is fully decidable, but an interesting exercise nevertheless. -----Original Message----- From: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr [mailto:owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr]On Behalf Of Daniel Andor Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:16 AM To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] camlp4 vs. ocamllex/yacc? Hi, I want to write a smallish translator that would read mathematical formulae in an easy to read (for humans, that is) format and translate them to a computer language (ocaml, fortran, c, latex, etc) for output. In the process it could do simple consistency checks (like making sure the dimensionality of physical equations are correct, for example) on the parse tree. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using camlp4 vs. a combination of ocamllex and ocamlyacc? Is there already a translator like this out there (to save me the effort)? Any tips on how consistency checks on the equations could be made harnessing the power of the type system? Thanks, Daniel. ------------------- 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 ------------------- 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