Browse thread
[Caml-list] [camlp4] compiling against Pcaml module
[
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: | Alexander V.Voinov <avv@q...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] a quick question on camlp4 |
From: Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a quick question on camlp4 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:55:17 +0200 > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:28:31AM -0700, Alexander V.Voinov wrote: > > > Is it possible to eliminate the keyword 'function' from this, > > that is to implement an extension like: > > > > iterate <list> with <pat1> -> <expr1> | <pat2> -> <expr2> ... > > Not a problem to keep 'function' since it is already a keyword in > OCaml (normal syntax). > > > I'm asking this just because I don't have time now to investigate > > this by my own :-). > > What do you ask, exactly? I was wondering if it was really possible to go deeper into the syntax tree and recreate the function body out of the <pat> -> <expr> pieces. Since you implemented your "iterate" > extension, I suppose that you know how to use Camlp4. It was a direct analog of the Pascal 'repeat' example. :-) I didn't go any further that time. > What is the > difficulty to implement your "fold"? Better knowledge of camlp4 :-). From your remark I understand that it's possible. Thank you! Alexander ------------------- 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