Parsing style [Was: [plt-scheme] proof checking: a subproblem]

From: andrew cooke (andrew at
Date: Fri Jan 20 20:15:55 EST 2006

I'm not sure Monads are the major reason (although you didn't say they
were, I know) - you'll find a recursive descent parser forming a major
chunk of Cousineau and Mauny's ML book, for example.  I think the argument
Noel gave probably explains much of the difference - when you have a
language that supports manipulation of S-expressions, and makes it easy to
read them, a lot of parsing becomes fairly trivial, so it's a less
interesting problem.

However, I'll check out the paper, thanks.


Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> andrew cooke wrote:
>> Vague cultural question - is recursive descent parsing with combinators
>> not that common in the scheme world?  I have more of a background in
>> Haskell and this question would have received a very different answer on
>> their list (not that there's anything wrong with using existing tools,
>> especially when they're probably more efficient!).
>> For example -
>> Assuming it's not that common, any hand-waving reasons why?  More
>> pragmatic?  Efficient?  Imperative?
>> Not trying to start a war - genuinely curious how different lnguages
>> encourage different approaches (I checked help desk and found nothing).
> I guess part of the answer is that monads aren't in common use in
> the Scheme world.
> Perhaps you'll find the paper "Abstraction and Performance from Explicit
> Monadic Reflection" by Jonathan Sobel, Erik Hilsdale, R. Kent Dybvig,
> and Daniel P. Friedman interesting.
>     <>
> See also
>     <>
> --
> Jens Axel Søgaard

Posted on the users mailing list.