Browse thread
3.10+beta: Camlp4: AST mapping treats record labels as patterns; should they have type ident instead?
-
Aleksey Nogin
-
Nicolas Pouillard
-
Aleksey Nogin
- Nicolas Pouillard
-
Aleksey Nogin
-
Nicolas Pouillard
[
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: | 2007-04-20 (15:17) |
From: | Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@g...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] 3.10+beta: Camlp4: AST mapping treats record labels as patterns; should they have type ident instead? |
On 4/18/07, Aleksey Nogin <nogin@metaprl.org> wrote: > On 18.04.2007 01:11, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > > Why do you mix the old definition of PaRec with the new definition of > > ExRec. [...] > > > > For patterns there is something doable: > > > > | PaEq of Loc.t and patt and patt (* p = p *) > > Can become > > | PaEq of Loc.t and ident and patt (* i = p *) > > > > Since that node is only used with an ident on his left. > > Yes, this sounds like a good thing to do. That's now in CVS. > > For expressions it's more complex > > > Is it the same issue as the workaround discussion above - the "proper" > way to make this distinction would be to introduce a separare > rec_binding type similar, but separate from the binding one? But is it > true that the "b; b" case in the binding type is only used for records? > If so, it would seem that splitting the binding type would not result in > that much duplication. Of course, I am only starting to understand the > new setup, no I may be completely wrong here. Yes it is just used for records and objects {< f1 = e1 ; ... ; fN = eN >}. But having one more category seems heavy, I have to think more about it. -- Nicolas Pouillard