Browse thread
[Caml-list] function vs. parser
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] function vs. parser |
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 05:20:11PM +0900, SooHyoung Oh wrote: > > > Could anyone explain me why "parser" was introduced in Ocaml? > > As you know, "function" is using in the caml light-instead of "parser". > > "parser" must be a reserved word like "let" and "function", right? > > Right: "parser" is used because they are not functions. In Caml Light, > we used "function", but it was an bad idea: the pattern matching rules > in parsers have nothing to do with the pattern matching rules in > functions and it was important to separate the notions. I have a petty complaint. Another name would have been better, say "parse" to match "match" since "parser" is a good name for a type and at least in English there are no good synonyms. If you start writing combinator parsers you have to hack the keyword parser to be parser_t or _parser or somesuch, which is a little ugly. Hey, I said it is a *petty* complaint! ;-) -- Brian ------------------- 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