From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yallop@gmail.com>
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDD3C7EE25
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Sat,  2 Nov 2013 22:27:20 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  yallop@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.212.175;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="yallop@gmail.com";
  x-sender="yallop@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  yallop@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.212.175;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="yallop@gmail.com";
  x-sender="yallop@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-wi0-f175.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.212.175;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="yallop@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-wi0-f175.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak4DANNsdVLRVdSvlGdsb2JhbAA+GoM/RwyDCLx1gRUIFg4BAQEBBwsLCRIqgiUBAQQBIwQZARsdAQMBCwYFCw0CAiYCAiEBAREBBQEcBhOHbgEDCQYNNp5RjARTgwmDbAoZJw1kiQEBBQyBHYs/gnAHgmuBQwOWH4FrgS+LIwODSBgphFE8
X-IPAS-Result: Ak4DANNsdVLRVdSvlGdsb2JhbAA+GoM/RwyDCLx1gRUIFg4BAQEBBwsLCRIqgiUBAQQBIwQZARsdAQMBCwYFCw0CAiYCAiEBAREBBQEcBhOHbgEDCQYNNp5RjARTgwmDbAoZJw1kiQEBBQyBHYs/gnAHgmuBQwOWH4FrgS+LIwODSBgphFE8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,623,1378850400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="33281523"
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 02 Nov 2013 22:27:20 +0100
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hm4so2375941wib.14
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=IHwTTx5Mz1i8JG4sASLiOIxFAr6h3A1V4w8PsIzmdbw=;
        b=bKrHD3Z4AYaq61sdQCg8CH3rOwh8QLukfGOlhIlI3rd7hPFn8V2JOiG1Qa4Lrdzngs
         fdiiZeL6xDB1xA9EUscLWVWAW3iNaB/zuE9xXrC/cgZnffiEMvMA9HXxclhwDL0yLnkf
         gdsXLfmYGrTL6fJ82YU1uoHbtUONL2/Vz86fc/gZqNNDg3Nkt35SeEOXqPa2Di9GXDp/
         cDLkTVwr9EIElhlxm29T7vhIKoSsvKqGKncn5w5OJFZ9i4nnsV2JuAKpb+fkNWKBeqmM
         Y0hGuwvmFsfp64taRvYfKYFcJ/o5/LrKGin7lRvFiZMDe3x1W5gtlggv2p2WXjHdpeMJ
         OkCg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.37.227 with SMTP id b3mr6617691wik.24.1383427639798;
 Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.185.65 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52755917.2000808@gmail.com>
References: <52755917.2000808@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:27:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAxsn=F5rGrpk6oNNprh0KhKTYgFjdpmB7W3y+5tzsDDoG2x5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeremy Yallop <yallop@gmail.com>
To: Matej Kosik <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com>
Cc: Caml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlp4: a silly question about quoting Ocaml terms

On 2 November 2013 19:57, Matej Kosik
<5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com> wrote:
> By looking at:
>
>   http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/Abstract_Syntax_Tree#Types
>
> there is a line:
>
>      <:ctyp< t : t >>   ....... Field declaration ........ TyCol of Loc.t and ctyp and ctyp
>
> so it seems that it should also be somehow posible to get a quote for "field declaration", i.e.:
>
>   <:ctyp<foo1:bar1>>

Yes.

> However, if I try that, I get an error:
>
>   While expanding quotation "ctyp" in a position of "expr":
>     Parse error: "->" expected after [ctyp level star] (in [ctyp]
>
> I do not quite understand why that quotation was rejected by camlp4.

I think it's a bug in camlp4, which appears to be parsing "foo1:bar1"
as part of a function type with a labelled argument (such as
"foo1:bar1 -> int").  It'd be worth submitting a report on Mantis
(http://caml.inria.fr/mantis) about the problem.  In the meantime you
can work around the issue either by writing the AST by hand or by
switching to the revised syntax, which doesn't have this ambiguity.

Jeremy.