On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:

> On 1/14/07, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org> wrote:
> > and create lots of different syntax which make the code unsharable at
> > the end (each one using different syntaxes).
> >
> > I think camlp4 is the not the proper way to extends the language, and is
> > definitevely *NOT* going to improve the world of OCaml.
> >
>
> Although remind you that a property of camlp4 syntaxes is that you can
> trivially convert an input source in plain (indented) OCaml code. This
> is done using the Pr_o module, an OCaml pretty printer.
>
> Thus, you can share it.
>
> $ camlp4 some_strange_syntax.cmo pr_o.cmo foo.ml -o foo_ocaml.ml

Getting standard OCaml code doesn't guarantee that you can do something
with it: in the case of syntax extensions, the result will be most likely
unreadable. But the real problem is that there is no way of reverting
back to the original source code. So if you write your programs in the
revised syntax, all patches must be written in the revised syntax.



Martin

--
Martin Jambon
http://martin.jambon.free.fr