On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:35:41PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Le 22/12/2011 22:39, oliver a écrit : > >>> where is there a documentation about these kind of errors from pcre-lib? > >>> I'm using Pcre.pmatch, which should just give me a bool. > >> > >> See pcre.mli. Pcre.Error(0) is the raw representation of Partial (i.e. > >> string only matched the pattern partially). > > [...] > > > > In my pcre.mli this error is not mentioned. > > > > There is a > > > > > > type error = > > | Partial (** String only matched the pattern partially *) > ^^^^^^^ > > There. > > > Which also mentioned a partial-match error. > > But Pcre.Error(0) looks somehow cryptical > > and strange to me. > > Pcre.Error(0) is cryptical but not strange: it is the same as > Pcre.Error(Pcre.Partial). Whatever gives you the error message > mentioning Pcre.Error(0) does not have access to type information, so it > cannot give you more than Pcre.Error(0). You didn't tell where the error > message came from.
So, (0) stands for the first entry in the list I assume. BadPartial-exception then would be Pcre.Error(1). ? That there is only returned an int, instead of the type information, where does that come from? Why is that not available? Does it coming from working together with the *.c stuff? > > >> By the way, in doubt, you can catch Pcre.Error and pattern-match on its > >> argument. > > > > Yes, I think that makes sense. > > But Pcre.Error(0) is not very verbose, and I also want to know > > what I catch and why... > > try Pcre.exec ... > with Pcre.Error e -> > match e with > | Partial -> ... > | _ -> ... > > If you are using the generic exception pretty-printer (module Printexc), > you can register a pretty-printer for Pcre.Error with > Printexc.register_printer. Hmhhh. Not used that stuff so far. > > > Installing a newer pcre was easy, but then my build process complains > > about multiple stublibs-directories. So I threw it away. > > So maybe it's better to change the apt-get stuff instead. > > The only way a new version of pcre could "fix" that would be if it > registered a pretty-printer as explained above. But this is not the > case, even in the last version (6.2.4). OK, thanks. I also looked now, at what the original package offers... ...for example with "make doc" a lot of additional nice docs will be created. That was not offered by my OS-based installation. So, looking at the source package was an interesting experience. Ciao, Oliver -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
