Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem)

[Patrick M Doane <patrick@watson.org>]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:

> Remark: but to be _exactly_ ocaml, the only solution is to use
> _exactly_ the same technology, i.e. ocamlyacc. There will be
> always differences in the behaviour of the two systems.

Why? The ocaml syntax has changed before - there is no technical reason
that prevents identical behavior between the two systems.  I just don't
see camlp4 as being practical until it can correctly parse standard ocaml
syntax.

> In this case, if you want syntax extensions and quotations, you are
> *obliged* to use the revised syntax:

>From what I can tell, the revised syntax makes more changes to the
language than are necessary to fit into camlp4 parsing technology.  If the
revised syntax only changed the syntax as necessary to support camlp4, and
the standard compiler would be modified to reject anything not accepted by
this new syntax, then the following proposal seems perfectly reasonable.

>   If you want quotations -> revised syntax
>   If you want extensible grammars -> revised syntax
>   If you want ifdef -> revised syntax
>   If you want functionnal streams -> revised syntax
>   If you want extensible functions -> revised syntax
>   If you want Alain Frisch's ocamllex extension -> revised syntax
>   If you want Graydon Hoare's quotations for C -> revised syntax
>   If you want my last baby: IoXML -> revised syntax

-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr