From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B35BC48 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:51:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j39Hpd0v020641 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:51:39 +0200 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 TAA11567 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:51:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.184]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id j39Hpb0D014330 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2005 19:51:37 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (rftp@pacbell.net@63.194.18.166 with plain) by smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 17:51:36 -0000 Message-ID: <42581633.5050702@rftp.com> Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:51:47 -0700 From: Robert Roessler Organization: Robert's High-performance Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Syntactic inclusion of a.ml in b.ml ? References: <20050408174142.GA1804@galois> <20050409103532.GA20625@furbychan.cocan.org> In-Reply-To: <20050409103532.GA20625@furbychan.cocan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4258162B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42581629.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 bindings:01 ...:98 ...:98 wrote:01 syntactic:01 viewpoint:02 python:02 element:02 consensus:02 inclusion:03 let:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Richard Jones wrote: > ... Often it's better just to use a single large > file and a capable editor, with "folding"[1] capabilities. > ... > [1] http://www.moria.de/~michael/fe/folding.html Interesting that you mention this... I am more than ready to implement folding in my syntax colorer "LexCaml" for Scintilla/SciTE[1] - all of the supporting infrastructure is in place. But it is not entirely clear *what* should be folded to be useful in working with OCaml source. A language with an obvious structure like Python suggests a fairly obvious folding structure. When I look at OCaml source code, however, I see a *lot* of really different free-form coding styles. The only language element that jumps out at me for folding is a simplistic handling of "let" bindings... which might not be useful for anything more than to say "Now with folding!" :) Anyone in the OCaml community (or out of it) that has an opinion on the Tao of OCaml source code structuring and manipulation is encouraged to offer it, and I will attempt to discern a "consensus" viewpoint and use that to produce a folding version of LexCaml. Note that actually showing what you mean, as in "here are folded and unfolded versions of this OCaml code" could be helpful in communicating any thoughts you may have on the subject. [1] Current and development versions of LexCaml are available at http://www.rftp.com/Downloads.shtml - The current release version of LexCaml is now part of Scintilla/SciTE versions 1.63 and later, at http://www.scintilla.org/ Robert Roessler roessler@rftp.com http://www.rftp.com