Browse thread
Bug in ocamlyacc
[
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: | 2007-04-24 (11:58) |
From: | ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m... |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Bug in ocamlyacc |
Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS <diego.fernandez_pons@etu.upmc.fr> writes: > Bonjour, > >> I won't use Menhir for that reason either.[...] > > Come on, Skaller. You know as well as everyone that adding a tool that > is not mature enough to the standard distribution is a bad idea. > Mehnir is clearly the "official" candidate for replacement of > CamlYacc, without yet being mandatory. This gives you the time to > port, criticize and ask for improvements. Look the mess that happened > with CamlP4 which didn't follow this pattern. > > So instead of being complaining because Mehnir is not yet in the > standard distribution, you should be porting your CamlYacc code to > ensure that when the tools are swapped, Menhir will make your code > simpler, faster and cleaner. Isn't there a contradiction here somewhere? "We won't fix Ocamlyacc, because Menhir will replace it and we won't put Menhir in the standard distribution because it is not god enough yet?". I don't want to make any demands whatsoever here -- I haven't looked an Menhir yet, nor have I looked at the Ocamlyacc bug in question. It's only I see a discrepancy here. Regards -- Markus