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 EAA25193; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 04:40:43 +0100 (MET) 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 EAA25234 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 04:40:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g153ef126887; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 04:40:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (patrick@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.6/8.11.5) with ESMTP id g153e5G52783; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:40:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from patrick@watson.org) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:40:04 -0500 (EST) From: Patrick M Doane To: Daniel de Rauglaudre cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem) In-Reply-To: <20020204155242.B2338@verdot.inria.fr> Message-ID: <20020204222850.N52713-100000@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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