Browse thread
[Caml-list] function vs. parser
-
SooHyoung Oh
-
Daniel de Rauglaudre
-
Brian Rogoff
- Daniel de Rauglaudre
-
Brian Rogoff
-
Daniel de Rauglaudre
[
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: | 2001-09-13 (16:09) |
From: | Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@i...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] function vs. parser |
Hi, > I have a petty complaint. Another name would have been better, say "parse" > to match "match" But "parser" is like "function", not like "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. Same problem with "type": in my parsers, I would like to have "expr", "patt" and "type". I named it "ctyp", ugly too. And "constraint"... which is named "constrain" in the OCaml parser. It has been the problem with keywords since the Pascal language... > Hey, I said it is a *petty* complaint! ;-) Well, there is some syntactic preprocessor for OCaml - I don't remember the name - which can do that... -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- 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