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 LAA31089; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:57 +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 LAA31128 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cantina.students.cs.unibo.it (cantina.students.cs.unibo.it [130.136.3.110]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9O9otD06661 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lordsoth.takhisis.org ([130.136.33.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by cantina.students.cs.unibo.it (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-2) with ESMTP id g9O9os1L028901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:55 +0200 Received: from lordsoth.takhisis.org (lordsoth.takhisis.org [127.0.0.1]) by lordsoth.takhisis.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-7) with ESMTP id g9O9okBe011521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:46 +0200 Received: (from zack@localhost) by lordsoth.takhisis.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-7) id g9O9oker011519 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:46 +0200 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:50:46 +0200 From: Stefano Zacchiroli To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Again on pattern matching and strings Message-ID: <20021024095045.GB11324@cs.unibo.it> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <3DB73515.90705@baretta.com> <15799.14325.887770.501722@karryall.dnsalias.org> <3DB7A4B9.1030607@baretta.com> <20021024105136.C12351@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021024105136.C12351@verdot.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:51:36AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > Would it be OK? General enough? Other propositions? What about "DEFINE" / "UNDEF"? The first is more C-like and macro substitution is really a C-like construct. For the other one ("UNDEF") I don't know if cpp have a macro to undefine macros, but ... it seems to me a good choice, also "UNDEFINE" can be good but it's a bit too verbose for my personal taste. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney ------------------- 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