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

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

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:

> > 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.
>
> You propose that I add a third syntax? A middle between the normal
> and the revised syntax. A norsed (or revmal) syntax?

Yes, that seems the only reasonable option at this point.  It is important
that either

  1. The standard Ocaml tools use camlp4, or

  2. A new syntax is developed that is used by both ocamlc and camlp4o
     such that they accept the same set of files and produce equivalent
     ASTs, or

  3. camlp4o be hacked until it is equivalent to ocamlc

Option 2 seems easiest to me, but any of them would be beneficial.

Alternatively the documentation should be very clear that using camlp4o is
not equivalent to the standard tools.  There have been a number of false
claims made on the list when streams were removed from the language that
one can simply recompile with camlp4.

Patrick

-------------------
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