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: Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OSR: META files for packages containing syntax extensions
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?

Cheers,
Dario



      ___________________________________________________________ 
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good  

http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/