Re: pb with ocamldep

• Previous message: Max Skaller: "Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"
• In reply to: Christophe Raffalli: "pb with ocamldep"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Christophe Raffalli wrote:
>
> It would be nice ocamldep coud also accept the -pp option to call a
> preprocessor.
>
> I have some problems with files that are not syntacticaly correct before
> preprocessing !
> So I can not use ocamldep on these files and this is annoying.

FYI: the lack of a standard preprocessor is a minor obstacle to
commercial use. By 'standard' I mean "supplied with the
main distribution" and the implication is for ease of
configuration, and integration with other tools.

As it happens, the lack of a preprocessor doesn't concern _me_,
since I use a powerful literate programming tool as a code
generator; however, ocamlyacc is annoying, since it isn't so
easy to generate #line directives (and it isn't clear these would
be respected in the generated code). This is mandatory for
use with any code generator (including my LP tool).

-- 
John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home

• Next message: Michael Hicks: "Re: pb with ocamldep"
• Previous message: Max Skaller: "Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"
• In reply to: Christophe Raffalli: "pb with ocamldep"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 22:31:47 MET DST