Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
OSR: META files for packages containing syntax extensions
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@l...>
Subject: Re: OSR: META files for packages containing syntax extensions
On 14-03-2008, Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 4.3 and 4.2 should be merged. 
>> 
>> All syntax extension should be contained in a package "statements" (or
>> whatever other name is chosen). If there is only 1 syntax extension, the
>> package "statements" is directly the syntax extension. If there is
>> several extension, each one get its own package with a name related to
>> its function.
>
> Thanks for your comments, Sylvain.  Below is a modification to the original
> proposal that incorporates your comments (with a few tweaks); under this new
> proposal, *all* syntax extensions have a ".syntax" suffix for findlib users:
>
> 4.1. Package is a syntax extension:
>
> "openin"        - the runtime lib required by the extension (if applicable)
> "openin.syntax" - The syntax extension itself
>
> 4.2. Package with optional syntax extension:
>
> "pgocaml"        - refers to the library without extension;
> "pgocaml.syntax" - refers to all syntax extensions in package;
>
> 4.3. Package is a collection of syntax extensions:
>
> "p4ck"               - all runtime libs for all extensions in collection?
> "p4ck.openin"        - runtime support for the openin extension (if applicable)
> "p4ck.openin.syntax" - the openin syntax extension
> "p4ck.syntax"        - all syntax extensions in the collection
>
>
> Though I'd prefer to avoid the Java syndrome of being.namespaced.into.oblivion,
> this new proposal does have the advantage of unifying all special cases.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

Nope, this is great.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall