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 TAA07900; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:18:24 +0200 (MET DST) 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 TAA07625 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:18:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from str12.sobor.org (adsl-63-198-183-99.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.198.183.99]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9HHILD17226; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:18:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by str12.sobor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051AC10C5C; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20021017.100735.41641743.avv@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> To: daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a quick question on camlp4 From: "Alexander V.Voinov" In-Reply-To: <20021017185517.H32600@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20021017182648.G32600@verdot.inria.fr> <20021017.092831.59477872.avv@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> <20021017185517.H32600@verdot.inria.fr> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Daniel de Rauglaudre Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a quick question on camlp4 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:55:17 +0200 > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:28:31AM -0700, Alexander V.Voinov wrote: > > > Is it possible to eliminate the keyword 'function' from this, > > that is to implement an extension like: > > > > iterate with -> | -> ... > > Not a problem to keep 'function' since it is already a keyword in > OCaml (normal syntax). > > > I'm asking this just because I don't have time now to investigate > > this by my own :-). > > What do you ask, exactly? I was wondering if it was really possible to go deeper into the syntax tree and recreate the function body out of the -> pieces. Since you implemented your "iterate" > extension, I suppose that you know how to use Camlp4. It was a direct analog of the Pascal 'repeat' example. :-) I didn't go any further that time. > What is the > difficulty to implement your "fold"? Better knowledge of camlp4 :-). From your remark I understand that it's possible. Thank you! Alexander ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners