From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gclci-caml-list@m.gmane.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,
	SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8732BC69
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed,  1 Nov 2006 13:43:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA1ChZQM006849
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:43:35 +0100
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GfFQs-0002W2-CP
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:43:02 +0100
Received: from 88.122.97.102 ([88.122.97.102])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:43:02 +0100
Received: from ciol13 by 88.122.97.102 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:43:02 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: caml-list@inria.fr
From: ciol <ciol13@gmail.com>
Subject:  Re: Functional programming using caml light
Date:  Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:42:13 +0100
Message-ID: <eia4n6$s71$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:  <eia2ut$l9o$1@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.122.97.102
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060927)
In-Reply-To: <eia2ut$l9o$1@sea.gmane.org>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 45489677.000 on discorde : j-chkmail score : X : 0/20 1
X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45489677.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; expr:01 mult:01 mult:01 expr:01 author's:01 obtains:98 wrote:01 prefixes:02 caml:02 caml:02 functional:02 programming:03 identical:06 complicated:09 i've:12 

ciol wrote:

> after factoring common prefixes, the author obtains :
> 
> Expr ::= Mult RestExpr
> 
> RestExpr ::= + Mult RestExpr
>             |- Mult RestEXpr
>             |(* nothing *)
> 
> [...]
> 
> But I don't obtain the same result for RestExpr :
> 
> RestExpr ::= + Mult Expr
>             |- Mult Expr
>             | (* nothing *)
> 

_Sorry_, it's an error, I obtain :
RestExpr ::= + Expr
            | - Expr
            | (* nothing *)

But I've just realized that the author's solution is in fact the same as 
mine (he replaced Expr in RestExpr by Mult RestExpr. But why ? Isn't it 
more complicated ? The result in caml will be identical  wont it be ?