[wg-camlp4] [opam-devel] Changes to the parsetree

[Anil Madhavapeddy]

On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:25, Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas at ocamlpro.com> wrote:

>> Thomas, any objections to me doing this rearrangement in OCamlPro/opam-repository?
> 
> No pb. I am just a bit concerned with the list of compilers growing unbounded, but for now I think it's completely fine.
> 

Right, so this would reduce the number of compilers in OCamlPro/opam-repository and move them to this experimental one.

I wonder if it's time to have an OPAM remotes discovery service :-)

-anil



> Thomas
> 
>> 
>> -anil
>> 
>> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:15, Mike McClurg <mike.mcclurg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Alain,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for writing up that proposal. Is the code in your extension_points branch ready for testing at all yet?
>>> 
>>> On a separate note, might it be a good idea to add an opam-repo-dev repository to github.com/ocaml, which would provide opam switches for all the experimental OCaml branches, such as extension_points? Or is there such an experimental opam repo out there already?
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Alain Frisch <alain.frisch at lexifi.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/25/2013 03:13 PM, jathdr wrote:
>>> Could we get a summary of the current syntax proposal? I've been
>>> following along, but I'm a bit lost as to what has been discussed,
>>> accepted, rejected, etc.
>>> 
>>> This file describes the current syntax proposal:
>>> 
>>> http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/ocaml/branches/extension_points/experimental/frisch/extension_points.txt?revision=HEAD&view=markup
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is probably a bit off topic, but while we're talking about
>>> interval patterns: I discovered the other day that interval patterns
>>> only work for chars, while I always assumed they also worked for
>>> ints. Is there a reason why they don't?
>>> 
>>> Currently, range patterns for characters are expanded in the parser. Doing so for integers as well could lead to huge or-patterns to be processed by the rest of the compiler.  Supporting range patterns directly in the compiler would add a little bit of extra complexity for type-checking (exhaustiveness check) and code generation.  I don't see any theoretical problem, though.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Alain
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wg-camlp4 mailing list
>>> wg-camlp4 at lists.ocaml.org
>>> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/wg-camlp4
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wg-camlp4 mailing list
>>> wg-camlp4 at lists.ocaml.org
>>> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/wg-camlp4
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> opam-devel mailing list
>> opam-devel at lists.ocaml.org
>> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
>