From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <daniel.c.buenzli@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
	SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7061DBBC4
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:02:33 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AksCAKdGnklIDtybimdsb2JhbACUFz8BAQEKCQwHDwWvIZAEAQMBA4QMBoJTgXY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,241,1233529200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="24435586"
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2009 15:02:33 +0100
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so1326621fga.43
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:02:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date
         :x-mailer;
        bh=i8qvI2ifB/yQBWhouhzDmQBzQpBTlEQ0HSfnf5/2hqk=;
        b=Bps5FDVylYQIQmhZZ8RN3ef75pk8dJ1WQQO/aJff7rZe0uHz0m0XP0gSFTkbKMQeZ1
         REcqg/JPNhb64e1WZ7AuDdCSyQNKSDi1dZcXelL8AYYxSiHCINa0KF3acRt/v806gJqe
         v0NfJIUrqGuKZf2OFUk9Fx0MVtry+zHGyADNE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
         :mime-version:subject:date:x-mailer;
        b=IROg+9DfsOnTSyYDYTAM8GOlQA9UsVyruErJN5Kez4jo+vyb+MzsL/rsrWbE8F3lN3
         WFDVKrOKRgTmPTPmvNh2kCgr//CAxmxyJOZu4QbUeZ3gdKHjKeDS9uV8ajakFhrKaaiu
         tshZMfVU3irD0pdruNGJEiX6jT5Ib2IwfNFzw=
Received: by 10.86.95.20 with SMTP id s20mr1085824fgb.40.1235138552703;
        Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.34? (247-222.77-83.cust.bluewin.ch [83.77.222.247])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e11sm918488fga.20.2009.02.20.06.02.31
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= <daniel.c.buenzli@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B8A20154-A833-4AC7-98B4-BAC413DFB259@erratique.ch>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_B=FCnzli?= <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
To: OCaml List <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: ocamlbuild & deps
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:01:46 +0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-Spam: no; 0.00; bunzli:01 buenzli:01 deps:01 deps:01 suppressing:01 dependencies:01 statically:01 dynamically:01 clearer:01 argument:02 argument:02 parameter:02 optimization:03 daniel:04 daniel:04 

Am I right in thinking that in rule specifications we could get rid of  
the ~dep(s) parameter of rules and have all deps be specified/ 
discovered dynamically via the 'build' argument ? Otherwise stated is  
~dep(s) just an optimization ?

Out of curiosity any idea in the cost of suppressing these arguments  
(i.e. was that road actually followed at some point) ?

If the answer to the first question is yes. Then I think the  
documentation could be made clearer by stating that what is asked to  
be built by the 'build' argument is considered as dependencies.  
However if you know some deps statically you can specify them as  
dep(s) argument this will just implicitely add  them to the list given  
to the 'build' argument.

Best,

Daniel