Browse thread
[Caml-list] otags problem
[
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: | Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem) |
Hi, > I forgot to ask, why is it necessary to move to LL? Is it the error > handling, or is there something about the dynamicness of camlp4 that > needs a RD parser to hook into? I'm not a compiler expert, but I've > read about it the differences a bit, but I'd like the expert > opinions. :) It is not mandatory. LL(1) is just easy to parse. When things are based on a simple system and are easy to program, they have good properties for possible future extensions and improvements. -- 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