From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA07382 for caml-redistribution; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:18:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA21378 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 02:31:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from zarya.maya.com (zarya.maya.com [192.70.254.128]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA26247 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 02:31:17 +0100 (MET) Received: (from prevost@localhost) by zarya.maya.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA08383; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:30:50 -0500 Sender: weis To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Looking for a nail References: <199901261920.LAA23249@kronstadt.transbay.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: John Prevost In-Reply-To: Ian T Zimmerman's message of "Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:20:47 -0800" User-Agent: Gnus/5.070072 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.72) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: 27 Jan 1999 20:30:50 -0500 Message-ID: Accidentally sent this as a personal reply. Here it is to the list. Ian T Zimmerman writes: > > - adding start conditions a la flex to ocamllex > > I haven't thought of this really hard, but I bet there is already a > way to do that. If there isn't, I would think hard again to find a > cleaner, more functional (less stateful) way to do it. If the current > condition is kept in a global as in flex, that just drops again the > reentrancy that Christian has been working so hard to achieve. The current condition already exists in ocamllex--this is what the rule name is equivalent to. The one thing it doesn't do is support the idea that some regexp -> action specs should be in more than one rule--which is no real great loss. I think making the languages of ocamllex and ocamlyacc slightly nicer wouldn't be entirely out of order, as would writing them in Caml rather than C. John.