From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA09638; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:33:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA01015 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:33:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail2.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.58]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h94KXY106998 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:33:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from syd-ts22-2600-048.tpgi.com.au (syd-ts22-2600-048.tpgi.com.au [203.26.30.48]) by mail2.tpgi.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h94KXQrK013214; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 06:33:28 +1000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 integration From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@ozemail.com.au To: Alain.Frisch@ens.fr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065299593.12873.8.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 05 Oct 2003 06:33:13 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Kaspersky-Antivirus: Passed X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 camlp:01 ozemail:01 alain:01 frisch:01 camlp:01 ocamldep:01 ocamldoc:01 ocamldep:01 ocamldoc:01 -pp:01 cmo:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 21:29, Alain.Frisch@ens.fr wrote: > On 4 Oct 2003, skaller wrote: > > > Just some notes on camlp4. One problem I have noticed > > is that camlp4'd codes don't work so well with other > > tools such as ocamldep and ocamldoc. Both these programs > > parse Ocaml but can't load camlp4 to do the job. > > [I think you have to use pr_o.cmo to print a standard > > Ocaml file to use them?] > > Both ocamldep and ocamldoc accept the -pp argument. It isn't not documented? > Sometimes, it would be > more convenient to specify the syntax extensions directly in the Caml > sources. Yes, i think that would be nice. There's a related issue for C++ where some discussion of a directive: #language "iso-9988" or whatever so extensions in the next version don't break existing codes (mainly by some identifiers becoming keywords). ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners