From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ddr@yquem.inria.fr>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F3EBBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun,  8 Mar 2009 11:27:24 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,324,1233529200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="22214222"
Received: from yquem.inria.fr ([128.93.8.37])
  by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2009 11:27:24 +0100
Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 25991)
	id 152B9BBAF; Sun,  8 Mar 2009 11:27:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:27:24 +0100
From: Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re : [Caml-list] Re: camlp4 stream parser syntax
Message-ID: <20090308102724.GC5433@yquem.inria.fr>
References: <A60C1C9E-9990-40E8-B6B3-6B4FBBB50F24@gmail.com> <24D11586-4F15-4B6E-8FB7-58651317164D@gmail.com> <46331.52510.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <0B508092-FD71-4733-BC95-B6B87A6D3E6B@gmail.com> <154139.25342.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <46FCBABD-7E4A-4077-8227-3816FD6D635D@gmail.com> <20090308093756.GB5433@yquem.inria.fr> <046C7516-62FF-4F46-B2D9-CEA1045132CD@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <046C7516-62FF-4F46-B2D9-CEA1045132CD@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Spam: no; 0.00; rauglaudre:01 rauglaudre:01 camlp:01 parser:01 syntax:01 lexer:01 ocamllex:01 lexer:01 camlp:01 grammars:01 lident:01 plexer:01 lident:01 lowercase:01 2009:98 

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:51:26AM +0000, Joel Reymont wrote:

> I would prefer to use the #2 approach but I'm using a custom lexer  
> built by ocamllex.

Mmm... I am not eventually sure that what I said was correct... I should
test it myself, what I generally do before asserting things... :-)

But I was not clear: I said that you had to program *both* items. It
was not an "or" but an "and"...

But... it was false...

Bsakjfvouveoussasj.... I said nothing... I restart...

A change in the lexer should be sufficient.

If you cannot (or if you don't want):

Only changing the "tok_match" record field (2nd point) would not work
for keywords (defined by "just a string" in Camlp* grammars), because
the lexer *must* recognize all combinations of the identifier as
keywords, implying a change, anyway, in the lexer.

On the other hand, if you can accept that these identifiers are not
keywords (i.e. not reserved names), and if there a token for identifiers,
like "LIDENT" of "UIDENT" in Camlp* proposed lexer (module Plexer in
Camlp5), you can put them in your grammar as (for example):
     LIDENT "delay"
instead of:
     "delay"

In this case, a change of the "tok_match" record field should work.
Define the function:

let my_tok_match =
  function
    (p_con, "") ->
       begin function (con, prm) ->
         if con = p_con then prm else raise Stream.Failure
       end
  | (p_con, p_prm) ->
       begin function (con, prm) ->
         if String.lowercase con = p_con && prm = p_prm then prm
         else raise Stream.Failure
       end
;;

Then look for an identifier named "tok_match" in your code, which
should be a record field, and define that "tok_match" record field as
"my_tok_match".

If you don't find it, perhaps it is implicitely used by another Camlp*
library function. In this case, well, more work may have been done.

-- 
Daniel de Rauglaudre
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~ddr/