Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:55:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> > I think we should better have a naming convention for camlp4 syntax >> > estension instead of picking randon names. What about restating our >> > current libraries naming convention into something like lib<foo>-camlp4? >> >> No other comments? Should I assume that this proposal is ok and write >> the corresponding policy paragraph? > > Sounds fine to me.
I've one problem with it : does camlp4 file are really library ? They are mostly macro only needed at compile time... I prefer <foo>-camlp4 because of this. -- Rémi Vanicat
