"S. Alexander Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on macros, I
> have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing? Monadic parsing
> allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation step and work
> in Hugs (where you don't have a makefile). What does Happy buy you here?
I've used Happy instead of parser combinators because I wanted the
additional global error-checking. I believe that the standard
implementations of parser combinators will allow you to specify an
ambiguous grammar, and return one of the multiple possible parses,
without warning.
Carl Witty
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
