[wg-camlp4] Changes to the parsetree

Thomas Gazagnaire thomas at ocamlpro.com
Tue Mar 26 11:57:15 GMT 2013


just few minor remarks/questions:

* is the distinction between top-level items and other items really necessary (eg, @ vs. @@) ? This seems to be the only "complex" thing to explain, as the other parts of the design nicely sounds rather simple. Also I'm not sure to understand why you need/want to annotate individual structure items in a recursive type declaration.

> Another change I've committed recently is an update to the Typedtree representation, to bring it closer to the current state of the Parsetree, including attributes.  This makes it possible for external tools to process attributes in .cmt/.cmti files.  I've committed an example of a "mini-ocamldoc" based on this technique:

* the doc annotations are the ones where you usually prefer to have some kind of suffix notation (eg. you usually read what the function / module does before reading its signature). Is the plan to automatically transform suffix ocamldoc snippets into prefix annotations or to drop the suffix doc snippets completely ?


> http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/ocaml/branches/extension_points/experimental/frisch/minidoc.ml?revision=HEAD&view=markup
> http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/ocaml/branches/extension_points/experimental/frisch/testdoc.mli?revision=HEAD&view=markup 
> Leo: you mentioned that you're working on a revised ocamldoc.  Do you have plans to have it rely on attributes?
> Alain
> _______________________________________________
> wg-camlp4 mailing list
> wg-camlp4 at lists.ocaml.org
> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/wg-camlp4

More information about the wg-camlp4 mailing list