ANNOUNCE: Happy 1.10 released

ANNOUNCING Happy 1.10 - The LALR(1) Parser Generator for Haskell ----------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pleased to announce version 1.10 of Happy, the parser generator system for Haskell. Changes in this version, relative to version 1.10 (the previous full release): * bugfixes, and minor performance improvements, * most of the examples work again. Happy is available in source form, which can be compiled with GHC version 4.xx (4.08 or 5.00 recommended), and we also provide binaries for some architectures. The Happy homepage with links to the various distributions lives at: http://www.haskell.org/happy/ Please send any bug reports and comments to simonmar@microsoft.com.

"Simon Marlow"
ANNOUNCING Happy 1.10 - The LALR(1) Parser Generator for Haskell -----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that the build system does not create a link from `happy-<version>' to `happy'. Is this intentional? Cheers, Manuel

"Simon Marlow"
ANNOUNCING Happy 1.10 - The LALR(1) Parser Generator for Haskell
An RPM package for x86 RedHat Linux[1] is now available at ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/chak/jibunmaki/i386/happy-1.10-2.i386.rpm The matching source RPM is at ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/chak/jibunmaki/src/happy-1.10-2.src.rpm Happy LALRing, Manuel [1] The binary has been build on RH7.0 with glibc2.2.

Combining two threads... Like macros and preprocessors, Happy generates code. I assume the justification for this is that hand-coding a parser in Haskell is presumed to be too difficult or that it is too hard to get the right level of abstraction (and therefore a macro-like facility is required). However, I've also used Hutton & Meijer style monadic parsers and found them extremely elegant, clean, and easy to use in both Haskell and Python (though in Python they were too slow for my xml application -- function call overhead is _very_ high in Python). 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? <goingovermyhead> And generalizing from the above, since Monads/Arrows are types that describe a computation declaratively and Macros are functions that describe a computation procedurally, is it possible that, for any application of Macros, you can find a suitable Monad/Arrow? Or am I not understanding either well enough? </goingovermyhead> -Alex- ___________________________________________________________________ S. Alexander Jacobson Shop.Com 1-646-638-2300 voice The Easiest Way To Shop (sm)
participants (3)
-
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
-
S. Alexander Jacobson
-
Simon Marlow