From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id UAA10166 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 20:09:32 +0200
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA25203 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 05:42:07 +0200
Received: from kronstadt.rahul.net (kronstadt.rahul.net [204.95.70.128]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id FAA03783 for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 05:42:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from itz@localhost) by kronstadt.rahul.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA12614; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:40:55 -0700
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:40:55 -0700
Message-Id: <199610180340.UAA12614@kronstadt.rahul.net>
From: Ian T Zimmerman <itz@rahul.net>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: lexing__get_next_char ?
Sender: weis



Hello camellers --- this is a hacker question.
In the caml-light sources, in src/runtime/lexing.c, the primitive
get_next_char is defined as follows:

struct lexer_buffer {
  value refill_buff;
  value lex_buffer;
  value lex_abs_pos;
  value lex_start_pos;
  value lex_curr_pos;
  value lex_last_pos;
  value lex_last_action;
};

value get_next_char(lexbuf)     /* ML */
     struct lexer_buffer * lexbuf;
{
  mlsize_t buffer_len, curr_pos;
  
  buffer_len = string_length(lexbuf->lex_buffer);
     ...

How can this work, when lexer buffers are ML records on the heap, as
the following piece of src/lib/lexing.ml seems to show:

let create_lexer f =
  { refill_buff = lex_refill f;
    lex_buffer = create_string 2048;
    lex_abs_pos = - 2048;
    lex_start_pos = 2048;
    lex_curr_pos = 2048;
    lex_last_pos = 2048;
    lex_last_action = dummy_action }
    ...

Shouldn't get_next_char be something like

value get_next_char(lexbuf)     /* ML */
     value lexbuf;
{
	mlsize_t buffer_len, curr_pos;
	assert(Is_block(lexbuf));
	buffer_len = string_length(Field(lexbuf,1));
	...

Thanks for your explanation!

-- 
Ian T Zimmerman                        <itz@rahul.net>
Days spent working only for oneself are twice wasted; 
it would have been better not to work at all.