Browse thread
caml: camlp4 revised syntax
[
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: | tmp123@m... |
| Subject: | caml: camlp4 revised syntax |
Hello,
First of all, thanks to all people who develops this language and
related tools, and to people who supports them using it.
I decided to use it in several developments. When finished, the
developed modules will be made public, if they are enough generic (best
place to publish it?)
Two points still causing some troubles:
1) The internal integer coding:
It seems that an integer of value "x" is internally stored like "2x*1" (
x shift 1 or 1 ). That is a loss of performance, not only when doing
calculations, but also, by example, when using the integer as index of a
string character, ... . Usage of native-int doesn't improves the subject.
2) Syntax:
It seems better to use the camlp4 revised syntax than the usual one. The
reason is, by example, to skip this kind of errors:
initial version:
a1;
a2;
a3;
...
change to forget all exceptions produced by "a1": next source is
incorrect with normal syntax (at execution time), but correct with
revised one:
try
a1
with
_ -> ();
a2;
a3;
However, the revised syntax has a paradox. An "if" statement is, usually:
if ... then (
...
) else (
...
)
while a "for" statement can be:
for ... do
...
done
or
for ... do {
...
}
but not the expected one:
for ... (
)
why not a "for" that, as "let", "if" or "value", applies only to the
next statment (or grouped list of them)? Knows someone if it is very
dificult to modify the syntax to accept this?
Thanks again.
PS: direct mail to this address is filtered. To skip the filter, add
word "caml" to the subject of the mail.