From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B9EBC69; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:50:39 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAEvxZUdCITR5/2dsb2JhbACBV6gN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,176,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="5729912" Received: from stork.ru (HELO luckytravels.com) ([66.33.52.121]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2007 12:50:38 +0100 Received: from serp.office.stork.ru (Orel-UISistem.88.quantum.ru [88.86.88.230] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by luckytravels.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id lBHBoNYG025086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:50:25 +0300 Message-ID: <47666280.3080608@stork.ru> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:50:24 +0300 From: SerP User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicolas Pouillard Cc: caml-list , caml-list-bounces Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 optional arguments References: <47663E82.40402@stork.ru> <1197889323-sup-4479@ausone.inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <1197889323-sup-4479@ausone.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; camlp:01 syntax:01 bug:01 syntax:01 bug:01 0.80:98 0.80:98 wrote:01 preprocessor:01 caml-list:01 revised:02 revised:02 seems:03 arguments:07 nicolas:08 USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on luckytravels.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/533/Sat Oct 16 21:09:44 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on luckytravels.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > What preprocessor do you use revised syntax, original one? > > It seems to be a bug already fixed for the revised syntax, since it works for > me. > > Thanks, it's really works in revised syntax. Should I post this bug? What about a case when we use original syntax ? :-)