Hi Ken -- On 1/28/2018 7:28 PM, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 07:12:01PM -0500, Brian Callahan wrote: >> Hi ports -- >> >> Attached is a new port, lang/ocaml-camlp5. Camlp5 is an OCaml Preprocessor >> and Pretty-Printer. >> A quick perusal of the archives indicates that this piece of software has >> been proposed numerous times, as far back as 2010, yet has never been >> imported. The archives are scarce on reasons why it wasn't ever imported, >> but it seems like it has something to do with math/coq. Looking at Coq, the >> latest version says that Camlp4 no longer works, only Camlp5. And Camlp5 >> doesn't conflict with Camlp4, so let's say we're future-proofing for >> whenever someone comes along who wants to update math/coq. >> >> --- >> pkg/DESCR: >> Camlp5 is a preprocessor and pretty-printer for OCaml programs. It also >> provides parsing and printing tools. >> >> As a preprocessor, it allows one to: >> * extend the syntax of OCaml, >> * redefine the whole syntax of the language. >> >> As a pretty printer, it allows one to: >> * display OCaml programs in an elegant way, >> * convert from one syntax to another, >> * check the results of syntax extensions. >> >> Camlp5 also provides some parsing and pretty printing tools: >> * extensible grammars >> * extensible printers >> * stream parsers and lexers >> * pretty print module >> >> It works as a shell command and can also be used in the OCaml toplevel. >> --- >> >> Run tested on amd64 and build tested on armv7. But as this is the first time >> I'm working with OCaml, more experienced eyes appreciated. >> >> OK? >> >> ~Brian >> > I am not the definitive Ocaml guy, but I have touched it in the > past. Most recently in removing a large number of ocaml programming > ports in favour of letting people compile current software from opam, > > I sense camlp5 falls into this category, so I would be mildly against > adding this port. I keep hoping opam 2.0 gets released soon and we can > consider using its new functionality to build most if not all ocaml > ports rather than manually maintain each individual program that uses > ocaml. > > I thought his might be a topic of discussion at p2k18 in Nantes. :-) > > .... Ken
And that shows how little I know about the OCaml world :) Your proposal sounds great if it can be made to happen, so I'd be fine on holding off on this, unless someone really really wants to update the lang/compcert compiler port right now, as that's the only thing I can think of that would need this new port. I can't make it to Nantes, but I'd be happy to chip in some of the work effort if that's the route that's decided upon. ~Brian
