From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA15507; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:29:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA14975 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:29:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from paul.rtelekom.ru (paul.rtelekom.ru [217.146.42.160]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8NCTFiM023495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:29:16 +0200 Received: from paul.rtelekom.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by paul.rtelekom.ru (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8NCTB1k015286 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:29:11 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from argentoff@rtelekom.ru) Received: (from paul@localhost) by paul.rtelekom.ru (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i8NCTBJt015285; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:29:11 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from argentoff@rtelekom.ru) X-Authentication-Warning: paul.rtelekom.ru: paul set sender to argentoff@rtelekom.ru using -f To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] pxp: node # write and iso-8859-1 From: Paul Argentoff Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:29:11 +0400 Message-ID: <86pt4df9t4.fsf@paul.rtelekom.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4152C19B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; pxp:01 88591.:01 buffer:01 pxp:01 pxp-lex-iso:01 88591:01 jabber:01 jabber:01 supported:01 buf:01 node:02 node:02 module:03 chunk:03 executable:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Dear All, I've noticed that node#write implies `Enc_iso88591. Even if I write "node#write (`Out_buffer xml_buf) `Enc_utf8" the program gives a message "Pxp_lexers: This type of internal encoding is not supported: ISO-8859-1 - maybe missing lexing module?". If I link the executable with pxp-lex-iso88591 everything's ok. But I don't really want to add another chunk of code to my already big executable. Is there a way to avoid it? And why does write method need it? -- Yours truly, WBR, Paul Argentoff. Jabber: paul@jabber.rtelekom.ru RIPE: PA1291-RIPE ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners