Browse thread
Re: On language extensions (was Re: [Caml-list] global record)
[
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: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: Camlp4 mysteries (was Re: On language extensions (was Re: [Caml-list] global record)) |
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 01:38 +0200, Alain Frisch wrote: > Martin Jambon wrote: > > Otherwise it's possible to define well-disciplined syntax extensions. > > For example, if each new syntax construct (new rule) is forced to start > > with a unique, registered keyword and end with "end", then different > > syntax extensions that follow this rule should play well together. > > Except that any new keyword can potentially break existing code. You'd > need some other syntactical convention. If you follow the rules I specified, this is not possible. My rule is: extensions must be enabled in every file that use them: #syntax extension_name Then the extension only affects files deliberately written using the extension, so there won't be any code breakage unless the extension itself is upgraded, or, ocaml itself is upgraded. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net