From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043E8BCAE for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:10:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6J4AGbX031271 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:10:16 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA08693 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:10:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.201]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id j6J4AEPE028611 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:10:15 +0200 Received: (qmail 4052 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2005 04:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (rftp@pacbell.net@63.194.18.166 with plain) by smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jul 2005 04:10:13 -0000 Message-ID: <42DC7D3A.2000304@rftp.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:10:34 -0700 From: Robert Roessler Organization: Robert's High-performance Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "lnot" missing from documented keywords list References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42DC7D28.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42DC7D26.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 subsection:01 oversight:01 infix:01 lexer:01 mll:01 2005,:98 ...:98 ...:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 lexical:01 logical:01 argument:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Martin Jambon wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Robert Roessler wrote: > > >>I just noticed this when my OCaml syntax-colorer failed to render lnot >>as a keyword... :) >> >>So I checked the manual section (6.1 "Lexical conventions", subsection >>"Keywords") that served as the reference for said syntax-colorer and >>noticed that lnot is not there. >> >>Since the other "bitwise" logical operators are listed as keywords, I >>assume this is an oversight? > > > I guess these were made keywords keywords so that they can become > infix operators. lnot doesn't have this problem since it takes only > one argument. Thanks, Martin - that sounds plausible, and I wondered if there was some arcane reason for the "missing" lnot... this probably also explains why lnot does not appear in lexer.mll - I had missed this file on my first pass through the sources. :) Robert Roessler roessler@rftp.com http://www.rftp.com