On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:05:23PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> > 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.
Well, yes, they are library. The difference is that camlp4 libraries are
required by campl4 itself as a source parser and not by the user
programs. The point is what we would like to emphasize in package name.
Still from the user point of view you're probably right and <foo>-camlp4
is probably a better solution than mine.
Other thoughts?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature