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: | 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)? Chris ------------------- 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