From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6144FBBC4 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:22:37 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuEDAFqO0EnIuX5DgWdsb2JhbACWBwEBFiK1boN6Bg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,447,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="25284557" Received: from mta20.f3.k8.com.br ([200.185.126.67]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 18:22:35 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpa.f3.k8.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F6A2800050 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:22:28 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at k8.com.br Received: from smtpa.f3.k8.com.br ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta20.f3.k8.com.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rrSMWdTiRWxe for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:22:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.7.5.105] (fosforo.k8.com.br [200.185.109.125]) by smtpa.f3.k8.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0EC5280004C for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:22:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Processing an Ast.expr list in Camlp4 From: Andre Nathan To: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:23:14 -0300 Message-Id: <1238430194.11214.26.camel@andre.mz.digirati.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; expr:01 camlp:01 foo:01 seq:01 expr:01 seq:01 camlp:01 syntax:01 nathan:98 ast:02 ast:02 loc:03 let:03 pattern:04 matching:05 Hello Currently I have a function that basically does simply this: let foo _loc seq = <:expr< do { $list:seq$ } >> where seq has type `Camlp4.PreCast.Syntax.Ast.expr list'. Is it possible to iterate over this list and process each expr manually, for example, doing pattern matching on them, instead of just feeding it to the do{} block? Thanks, Andre