English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] otags problem
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-02-05 (02:47)
From: Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem)

> 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.

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