Christian Schulte wrote:
>
> Dear Torbjörn,
>
> I agree with you that compiling stuff needs some effort (some not much)
> in Oz. However it is much more general as what is available in Prolog
> and has the additional advantage that the approach taken in Mozart is
> also the approach in many other languages SML, C, C++, ...
Yes, I'm sure that Oz has a lot more to offer than Prolog in many ways.
I have already written stuff in Oz that would have been awkward or even
impossible to write in Prolog. I just wanted to make sure that Mozart
didn't have something up his sleeve when it comes to compilation that I
wasn't aware of. Can't help to think that the use of virtual strings for
compilation is very primitive...in this respect I'm spoiled by Prolog I
guess... And aren't there language implementations that are able to
optimize (some uses) of higher order functions (such as Map, Filter,
All, Some...) at compile time (to lessen the need for users to write
compilers)? Would be nice to have something like that in Oz too...
> Mozart offers Gump, a parser generator which is based on Bison/yacc. So
> this is full-fledged LALR parsing with quite nices support for generic
> productions. Please check the docs for details.
I'll have a look at Gump as soon as I get hold of a Linux machine. I'm
on vacation now, with a laptop on which Linux doesn't run. Gump doesn't
seem to like it under Windows...
Thanks and Best regards,
Torbjörn
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Torbjörn Lager Computational Linguist Department of Linguistics Uppsala University S-751 20 Uppsala Sweden Phone: +46 18 471 7860 http://stp.ling.uu.se/~torbjorn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Please send submissions to users@mozart-oz.org and administriva mail to users-request@mozart-oz.org. The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.