From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664A7D45F for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:40:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9VGefMC006535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:40:42 +0100 Received: from a64.davidb.org ([192.168.1.23]) by mail.davidb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1EWci6-0001Lb-V9; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:40:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] parser syntax? From: David Brown To: Oliver Bandel Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20051031123707.GA11759@first.in-berlin.de> References: <200510310608.54746.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20051031123707.GA11759@first.in-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:40:38 -0800 Message-Id: <1130776838.2677.62.camel@a64.davidb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43664909.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 parser:01 syntax:01 oliver:01 bandel:01 compilers:01 compilers:01 'ocamlc:01 -pp:01 ...:98 wrote:01 invoke:01 invoke:01 imho:01 imho:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 13:37 +0100, Oliver Bandel wrote: > IMHO camlp4 and the compilers could be used in ONE > command. I don't know if camlp4 could invoke the compilers > or the compilers could invoke camlp4 (I think the latter was the case), > but IMHO something like that was possible (at least in older releases). Isn't that the purpose of 'ocamlc -pp ...'? Dave