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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1C7BC69 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:58:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from server2.thinkcrime.de (server2.thinkcrime.de [213.133.110.149]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l3OBwrgv000851 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:58:53 +0200 Received: from hod-sarge-2005-10.lan.m-e-leypold.de (dslb-088-072-193-190.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.72.193.190]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server2.thinkcrime.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C6C488016 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:58:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by hod-sarge-2005-10.lan.m-e-leypold.de (Postfix, from userid 1003) id A6564376C9; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:06:28 +0200 (CEST) To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug in ocamlyacc References: <001401c785f3$3af5e890$6a7ba8c0@treble> <1177392571.10100.46.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070424122338.ozkvhzfhckcskkc4@webmail.etu.upmc.fr> Organization: Leypold, Software-Dienstleistungen und -Beratung From: ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:06:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20070424122338.ozkvhzfhckcskkc4@webmail.etu.upmc.fr> (Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS's message of "Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:23:38 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 462DF0FD.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bug:01 ocamlyacc:01 pons:01 pons:01 camlyacc:01 camlp:01 camlyacc:01 swapped:01 ocamlyacc:01 bug:01 discrepancy:01 markus:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 pattern:04 Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS 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