Hi,

On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 06:46:32AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

> Well, I guess I can rephrase my question then:  shouldn't there be both
> MLast.ExRecAcc (loc, e1, e2)  and
> MLast.ExModAcc (loc, me1, e2)

I prefer being far from semantics. I just consider syntax as
syntax. Same thing for "types" and "types declarations" which are
different in OCaml syntax tree, but not in Camlp4 syntax tree where
there are only "types".

> So my me1 can be any module access path in general (OK, no functor
> applications for now, but arbitrary depth).

Then use <:expr< $uid:s$ . $...$ >> in an iterator to create your
Camlp4 syntax tree.

> Antoher question, and one I am afraid I know the answer to:
> where/what is the quotation for applicative record update 
> {foo with bar = expr} ?

   <:expr< {(foo) with bar = expr} >>

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr