Hi!
Is there any specific reason why GHC is written in a parser GENERATOR
(Happy) and not in MONADIC PARSER COMBINATOR (like parsec)?
Is Happy faster / handles better errors / hase some great features or
anything else?
thank you :)
___
Haskell-Cafe mail
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM, blackbox.dev.ml
wrote:
> Is there any specific reason why GHC is written in a parser GENERATOR
> (Happy) and not in MONADIC PARSER COMBINATOR (like parsec)?
>
> Is Happy faster / handles better errors / hase some great features or
> anything else?
>
Most probably b
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:49 PM, blackbox.dev.ml
wrote:
> Hi!
> Is there any specific reason why GHC is written in a parser GENERATOR
> (Happy) and not in MONADIC PARSER COMBINATOR (like parsec)?
>
> Is Happy faster / handles better errors / hase some great features or
> anything else?
One reason
On 3 Aug 2013, at 02:20, Jason Dagit wrote:
>> Hi!
>> Is there any specific reason why GHC is written in a parser GENERATOR
>> (Happy) and not in MONADIC PARSER COMBINATOR (like parsec)?
>>
>> Is Happy faster / handles better errors / hase some great features or
>> anything else?
>
> One reason
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2013, at 02:20, Jason Dagit wrote:
>
>>> Hi!
>>> Is there any specific reason why GHC is written in a parser GENERATOR
>>> (Happy) and not in MONADIC PARSER COMBINATOR (like parsec)?
>>>
>>> Is Happy faster / handles better errors
On 3 Aug 2013, at 21:03, Jason Dagit wrote:
> Another con of using parsec that I forgot to mention in my previous
> email is that with Parsec you need to be explicit about backtracking
> (use of try). Reasoning about the correct places to put try is not
> always easy and parsec doesn't help you w
* Malcolm Wallace [2013-08-04 09:33:22+0100]
>
> On 3 Aug 2013, at 21:03, Jason Dagit wrote:
>
> > Another con of using parsec that I forgot to mention in my previous
> > email is that with Parsec you need to be explicit about backtracking
> > (use of try). Reasoning about the correct places to
