Browse thread
[Caml-list] Again on pattern matching and strings
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Again on pattern matching and strings |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:51:36AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Would it be OK? General enough? Other propositions?
What about "DEFINE" / "UNDEF"?
The first is more C-like and macro substitution is really a C-like
construct.
For the other one ("UNDEF") I don't know if cpp have a macro to undefine
macros, but ... it seems to me a good choice, also "UNDEFINE" can be
good but it's a bit too verbose for my personal taste.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners