Browse thread
Intended behavior of GenerateMap
[
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: | Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Intended behavior of GenerateMap |
I've added to the Camlp4 wiki a documentation about Camlp4MapGenerator and Camlp4FoldGenerator http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/Camlp4MapGenerator http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/Camlp4FoldGenerator Enjoy! On 6/13/07, Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/8/07, Christian Stork <caml-list@cstork.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is my understanding correct that running "camlp4of -filter map ..." over > > > > class map = Camlp4Filters.GenerateMap.generated > > > > will produce a map class for *all* types defined in the current file -- > > irrespective if the types are incapsulated in a module (which is then > > used for the Camlp4Trash trick)? > > Your understanding is correct. > > > Wouldn't it be much nicer, i.e., more economical and more precise, if > > the above only produces a map class for the most recently defined type > > / mutually recursive types? > > Yes it will be nicer. I don't remember why I didn't do that, perhaps > to don't have to turn the AST definition in one big mutually recursive > type. > > > PS: I came to the above question after reading the source and some > > experimentation. Is there any place where the rationale behind > > GenerateMap/Fold is explained? > > Not really the goal was just to "scrap my boiler plate" in OCaml for > the Camlp4 AST (an economy of merely 5000 lines that are generated). > > -- > Nicolas Pouillard > -- Nicolas Pouillard\