From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16772BBAF for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6KNcM08029989 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:22 +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 BAA10953 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6KNcLPH029985 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:21 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.1] (rke75-3-82-229-183-156.fbx.proxad.net [82.229.183.156]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185108AF4; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44C013EC.2080201@inria.fr> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:20 +0200 From: Alain Frisch User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Jambon Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=FCnzli_Daniel?= , Eric Breck , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Camlp4 mysteries (was Re: On language extensions (was Re: [Caml-list] global record)) References: <51E3580C-02A1-4344-A5AA-862B580015F1@cs.cornell.edu> <60FD7628-7F4E-4765-88AD-B3AB7DA987D0@epfl.ch> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44C013EE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44C013ED.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; frisch:01 frisch:01 camlp:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 syntactical:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 define:01 jambon:01 construct:02 alain:03 alain:03 inria:06 examples:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Martin Jambon wrote: > Otherwise it's possible to define well-disciplined syntax extensions. > For example, if each new syntax construct (new rule) is forced to start > with a unique, registered keyword and end with "end", then different > syntax extensions that follow this rule should play well together. Except that any new keyword can potentially break existing code. You'd need some other syntactical convention. > It would be really nice to have official guidelines on how to develop > clean syntax extensions, if not automatic enforcement. Do you have concrete examples of extensions that don't play well together? -- Alain