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 FAA25592; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 05:00:48 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA25731 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 05:00:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1640i900134; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 05:00:44 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (patrick@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.6/8.11.5) with ESMTP id g1640ga71861; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:00:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from patrick@watson.org) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:00:41 -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: <20020205095755.B23442@verdot.inria.fr> Message-ID: <20020205224959.P70974-100000@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 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