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

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 - http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/pearl.pdf
> 
> 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.

    <http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/sw2005/sobel.pdf>

See also

    <http://library.readscheme.org/servlets/search.ss?kwd=monad&en=Enter>

-- 
Jens Axel Søgaard