From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA25954 for caml-red; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:44:10 +0200 (MET DST) 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 VAA20340 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:20:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from jaune.inria.fr (jaune.inria.fr [128.93.11.80]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e5RJKkH21169 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:20:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by jaune.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA20908 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:20:46 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:20:46 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: How to cleanly encode "quasi-constants"? Message-ID: <20000627212046.R12241@jaune.inria.fr> References: <20000626124230.F23651@jaune.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from bpr@best.com on Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:12:50PM -0700 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 12:12:50PM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > One issue with using CamlP4 which has been brought up before is that there > seems to be some emerging consensus on using ">>" and "<<" for function > composition, and there is a clash with CamlP4's use of these tokens. Is > there a good solution to this? The only solution would be to adopt another syntax for quotations. For that the only solution is to change the lexer (lib/plexer.ml) in Camlp4, or to use another lexer, a copy of this lexer with another way to represent quotations. But which one? which other syntax? -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/