Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Syntactic inclusion of in ?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-04-09 (17:51)
From: Robert Roessler <roessler@r...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Syntactic inclusion of in ?
Richard Jones wrote:

> ...  Often it's better just to use a single large
> file and a capable editor, with "folding"[1] capabilities.
> ...
> [1]

Interesting that you mention this... I am more than ready to implement 
folding in my syntax colorer "LexCaml" for Scintilla/SciTE[1] - all of 
the supporting infrastructure is in place.

But it is not entirely clear *what* should be folded to be useful in 
working with OCaml source.  A language with an obvious structure like 
Python suggests a fairly obvious folding structure.

When I look at OCaml source code, however, I see a *lot* of really 
different free-form coding styles.  The only language element that 
jumps out at me for folding is a simplistic handling of "let" 
bindings... which might not be useful for anything more than to say 
"Now with folding!" :)

Anyone in the OCaml community (or out of it) that has an opinion on 
the Tao of OCaml source code structuring and manipulation is 
encouraged to offer it, and I will attempt to discern a "consensus" 
viewpoint and use that to produce a folding version of LexCaml.

Note that actually showing what you mean, as in "here are folded and 
unfolded versions of this OCaml code" could be helpful in 
communicating any thoughts you may have on the subject.

[1] Current and development versions of LexCaml are available at - The current release version of 
LexCaml is now part of Scintilla/SciTE versions 1.63 and later, at

Robert Roessler