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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310E3BC69 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 18:39:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.227]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l41GdTM3032050 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 18:39:30 +0200 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so2431288nzf for ; Tue, 01 May 2007 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eraxkzA0MvyrzzzfiOUJsMc1jCwBiFkSpoCRKnxPRhv4PIDIRbFrIOf7m8FXNhHG/LPv2EE/0GeUReoGVsm208GNT0XTVCqtF7JRXfmtWW2+aoKctCh4kmzD5OgGHKOzCYfgLOUI/5PutxW3+6eDdRiPcDL6e4f1Cd6J0nUJN4s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=b34O2BWYK55x15cTQWmkY2Lc6mNhKMnOpw2eMthNg3qY88dXnCB3Fq/QIlgjHiqgKqWTuUf+pgo3Gg2dUNMQdbkz2NCzKjqcQe7AneSwBJoXqJfrLZqJJBBoLU7S6t5L9vXRGidGnm7BcFuYKhWfRBpZFCeAzwrLe8r1/b9tPrw= Received: by 10.114.36.1 with SMTP id j1mr2437252waj.1178037568336; Tue, 01 May 2007 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.183.15 with HTTP; Tue, 1 May 2007 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 18:39:28 +0200 From: "Nicolas Pouillard" To: "Joel Reymont" Subject: Re: Upgrading sexplib-2.7.0 to camlp4 3.10 Cc: "Caml List" In-Reply-To: <1779983C-70FC-4FD4-918D-2403B1D9885E@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <220DCCF0-FD2D-4116-8E30-992C1AD3FE95@gmail.com> <08610813-0F6F-4BC4-BB22-42FB0CF5EC84@gmail.com> <1779983C-70FC-4FD4-918D-2403B1D9885E@gmail.com> X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 46376D41.000 on concorde : j-chkmail score : X : 0/20 1 0.000 -> 1 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46376D41.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; camlp:01 variants:01 variants:01 ctyp:01 2007,:98 polymorphic:01 polymorphic:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 inherit:01 poly:02 poly:02 declaration:02 useless:05 upgrading:06 On 5/1/07, Joel Reymont wrote: > > On May 1, 2007, at 5:27 PM, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > > However I suggest you comment that part and try to go further with > > poly variants at a first glance. > > Are you saying that RfTag used to apply to regular variants? > > What about RfInh, how is that encoded now? Is this what you referred > to as poly variants? No, no, no there is still a difference between poly variants and classic ones. When I wrote `id it's for polymorphic ones. However there are now all in the same category: ctyp, so inherit is useless since it was made to be able to inject a type name in a polymorphic declaration. -- Nicolas Pouillard