Re: camlp4 syntax extensions' naming convention
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> > I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax
>> > estension instead of picking randon names. What about restating our
>> > current libraries naming convention into something like lib<foo>-camlp4?
>>
>> No other comments? Should I assume that this proposal is ok and write
>> the corresponding policy paragraph?
>
> Sounds fine to me.
I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They
are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer <foo>-camlp4
because of this.
--
Rémi Vanicat
Reply to: