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 OAA03149; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:59:11 +0200 (MET DST) 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 OAA03336 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:59:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9OCxA506682 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:59:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13764 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:59:05 +0200 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:59:05 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Again on pattern matching and strings Message-ID: <20021024145904.K12351@verdot.inria.fr> References: <3DB73515.90705@baretta.com> <15799.14325.887770.501722@karryall.dnsalias.org> <3DB7A4B9.1030607@baretta.com> <20021024105136.C12351@verdot.inria.fr> <20021024095045.GB11324@cs.unibo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021024095045.GB11324@cs.unibo.it>; from zack@cs.unibo.it on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:50:46AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:50:46AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > What about "DEFINE" / "UNDEF"? There is already a Camlp4 syntax extension "pa_ifdef.cmo" which adds "define" and "ifdef" (in lowercases). This is more for conditional compilation. In C macros, you have the two system with the same #define directive: #define FOO #define FOO(x) (...) The first form suggests that you are going to do a conditional compilation somewhere with #ifdef or #ifndef (and you can do it also in the command line by -DFOO: the pa_ifdef.cmo Camlp4 extension adds also this option -D). The second form suggests that you are going to do a macro substitution. Is is a good idea to follow the same idea in Camlp4 macros? I.e. having one construction for both cases? I don't know. I think it is possible, but perhaps a little bit tricky. Does anybody have an opinion? -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- 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