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] otags problem
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem)

>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.

The friends I talked to about it were surprised by the fact that it's a hand-written parser in the first place.  Was there something about the camlp4 that made it better to hand-write an RD parser as opposed to using a generator (modified to allow the meta-programming stuff in p4, of course)?


Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: