From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEF0BC6C for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:43:57 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAO7bnUfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACQHQEBAQgKKZsn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,262,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6674479" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 22:43:57 +0100 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0SLhvTD017347 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:43:57 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAOTbnUfOvjGroWdsb2JhbACQHQEBAQEBAQUEBgkIARebJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,262,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7349485" Received: from web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.49.171]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 28 Jan 2008 22:43:56 +0100 Received: (qmail 26564 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Jan 2008 21:43:55 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=MS1XTizOf3Bj2DdFzho0Cw4xQnxsBlH29remOWaGxo2I2kCpLnBA80F0G1FHm/g8eb0D3PMoM8aOf4bf/zSn4g+Ui7cJM7oFqU1N2W2wSbgqoc9XuuoJBYAJy1T2caDvq0u1ou+JOTKx4I/WQl4f5kENLs12I9JPpZLplwUcLIY=; X-YMail-OSG: tiOSSD4VM1loObkCazjoYlhpivyCArJWhbBP4bBFCJvFJv2TuVt7T2SgjnFh1rFFfFNK_bRLfdAYbz7m9H7fnPRaJ3jbXBIK_xTenkN_9KMQsA0_ul5XHq_m1lE2K3dvpN0sb5CTF.aCUGbwwGPiyjzYIg-- Received: from [82.155.248.154] by web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:43:55 GMT Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:43:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Dario Teixeira Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process To: Gerd Stolpmann , David Teller Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <1201554728.19148.53.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <350814.26315.qm@web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 479E4C9D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 parsers:01 parsers:01 lexer:01 ocamlyacc:01 lexer:01 ocamlyacc:01 cheers:01 caml-list:01 define:02 authors:03 mentioning:03 library:03 implement:06 > What we can do is to improve the infrastructure around the OCaml core. > The example of the XML parsers shows that there is a lot to do (although > these parsers might not be the most urgent question). I don't like it to > talk about things others would have to implement, so I think OSR is > mostly addressed at library/tool authors. Of course, it is important to > also hear opinions from the users of the libraries, but I think the > implementers should finally decide on what they recommend. We should > avoid to set standards that are ignored. Hi, Another example that is probably so obvious that it almost doesn't need mentioning is the incompatibility of the lexer interface between ulex and Ocamlyacc/Menhir. Either we define a common lexer interface that everyone can migrate to, or at least Ocamlyacc and Menhir could adopt Dypgen's solution and allow the user to specify the lexer's signature. The current situation is just absurd. Cheers, Dario ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/