Also, add documentation for the US-ASCII variants.
From: Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org>
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@15729 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
The only place that includes changes is the code for checking
the suffix. It is highly unlikely that the change has any
impact at all.
From: Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org>
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@15728 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
This updates Char, String, Bytes in the stdlib.
For now, they are hidden from documentation and are only for
internal compiler use.
From: Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org>
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@15726 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
make_float was added in 4.02
Buffer.(to_bytes, add_bytes, add_subbytes) were added in 4.02.
BytesLabels was added in 4.02.
Digest.(bytes, subbytes) were added in 4.02.
Marshal.(to_bytes, from_bytes) were added in 4.02.
various Pervasives functions were added in 4.02: print_bytes prerr_bytes output_bytes output_substring really_input_string
Printexc.(backtrace_slots, raw_backtrace_slot) were added in 4.02.
Scanf.(ksscanf, kfscanf) were added in 4.02.
Stream.of_bytes was added in 4.02.
From: Jeremy Yallop <yallop@gmail.com>
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@15687 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
This commit modifies the parser to use the newly defined .() and .[] operators. It also moves the definition of the standard .() and .[] operator for String/Bytes and Array to the pervasives module.
Before this commit, expressions of the form array.(index) and string.(index) where desugared to Array.get[_unsafe] array index and Strinf.get[_unsafe] string index. The unsafe or unsafe version were chosen depending on the presence of the "-unsafe" compiler option. Such expression are now desugared to ( .() ) array index and ( .[] ) string index respectively. The same desugar operation is applied to array.(index) <- value which becomes ( .()<- ) array index value.
In order to keep the standard semantic for the string and array index operations, these new index operators are defined in the pervasives module using new compiler primitives, e.g.
let .() = "%array_opt_get".
These new primitives are then mapped to safe or unsafe version depending on the
the "-unsafe" compiler option. Consequently, these modifications should have no impact on existing code.
With these modifications, defining custom .() and .[] operators should be easier, at the cost of losing access to the standard index operator for either array or string.
From: octachron <octa@polychoron.fr>
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@15661 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
It is important not to assume that String.t and Bytes.t will always
share the same representation. Using Obj.magic to convert between
functions would give a very bad example to users considering
a migration, which are very quick to imitate any moral turpitude found
in the standard library.
An unfortunate consequence of the change is the duplication of
String.concat code; other designs would be possible to share more
implementation details between Bytes and String (eg. defined
factorized operations on both in a shared internal module), but if we
consider that String representation may evolve in the future this
coincidence of implementation is really a temporary coindence rather
than an definitive duplication.
I checked that all the small functions introduced are marked as
inlinable. In the case of coercions like this, we could even have the
compiler recognize eta-expansions of the identity function and turn
them into simple rebindings.
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@15060 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
See the long comment in pervasives.ml for an explanation of the
change. The short summary is that we need to prove more elaborate
properties between the format types involved in the typing of %(...%),
and that proving things by writing GADT functions in OCaml reveals
that Coq's Ltac is a miracle of usability.
Proofs on OCaml GADTs are runtime functions that do have a runtime
semantics: it is legitimate to hope that those proof computations are
as simple as possible, but the current implementation was optimized
for feasability, not simplicity. François Bobot has some interesting
suggestions to simplify the reasoning part (with more equality
reasoning where I used transitivity and symmetry of the
relation profusely), which may make the code simpler in the future
(and possibly more efficient: the hope is that only %(...%) users will
pay a proof-related cost).
git-svn-id: http://caml.inria.fr/svn/ocaml/trunk@14897 f963ae5c-01c2-4b8c-9fe0-0dff7051ff02
Gabriel Scherer
Damien Doligez
Jérémie Dimino
Alain Frisch
Mark Shinwell
Xavier Leroy