Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Different types of streams
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-09-06 (09:37)
From: Dave Mason <dmason@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Different types of streams
(I've cc'ed everyone because for some reason my postings rarely make
it to the mailing list, and if they do they take days.)

>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:30:21 +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre <> said:

> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:43:58PM +0930, Alex Cowie wrote:
>> The convenience of having this parsing facility within the Ocaml
>> syntax should not be underestimated particularly for program
>> development under the toplevel.

I want to re-iterate this.  I have several 10's of lines of caml code,
and probably 1/2 of the programs I write use the [< >] parsing.

> Under the toplevel, you can #load "camlp4o.cma"

Honestly, I don't really understand the implications of the
preprocessor.  If that is literally all I have to do and then I can
use the syntax, that is probably fine (and if it's just as easy from
the command line and for ocamlopt).  But I guess I don't understand
why it won't be the default if it's really that trivial.

> Remember that the streams and parsers in OCaml have a very bad
> implementation, not tail recursive and not optimized. We regularly
> receive bug reports about their slowness and stack overflows when
> they are used.

I don't think anyone is arguing against fixing the implementation, but
the [< >] parsers are much more convenient/natural than yacc-like
parsers for many people and purposes.  Even a switch that let me
choose LALR or LL parsing but used the same syntax (as some C-based
tools do - see (I think) ANTLR) would seem to address this.

Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: