Browse thread
Building multiple configurations?
[
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: | Yoann Padioleau <padator@w...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Building multiple configurations? |
On Mar 22, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
>
> On 3/22/2010 9:13 PM, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
>>>
>>> I've got a configuration file that's a .ml file. And I do want it to be
>>> an .ml file that gets included at compile time, not some .txt config
>>> file that gets read in at runtime. I'm building two different versions
>>> of my app, with two different configurations.
>>
>> Why ? Why ? Why not having your app configurable with a txt file
>> or some command line flags like every other programs ?
>>
>
> Because it's an elaborate configuration.
Apparently it's a boolean since you support only 2 different configs ...
let config1 = {
field1 = 1;
field2 = true;
}
let config2 = {
field1 = 2;
field2 = true;
}
(* settable via command line or config file *)
let config = ref true
let current_config () =
if !config then config1 else config2
...
let main =
let args = [
"-config1", Arg.Set config, "";
"-config2", Arg.Clear config "";
]
in
Arg.parse ... blablabla
> I don't want to write an
> equally elaborate parser when I've already got ocaml to do that for me.
> I'd rather get a compile-time error than a runtime error if the syntax
> is bad. And the app isn't designed to be user-configured.
>
>>>
>>> Basically, I want to do the same thing as a C #ifdef:
>>>
>>> #ifdef VERSION2
>>> ... include version one
>>> #else
>>> ... include version two
>>> #endif
>>
>> People use that because they want to do different things depending on the architecture, or
>> if some dependencies are present or not. Do you have the same requirement here ?
>>
>
> They also use it for things like debug/release build. But I suppose you
> could say that the two configurations have totally different
> dependencies for these purposes.
>
> I know what I'm doing is a little weird. But I have my reasons for
> wanting to do it this way.
>