OxCaml minus39 fixes. - #1469
Conversation
art-w
left a comment
art-w
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! I'll rebase my other PRs on top once this is merged :)
| (Load_path.get_paths () |> List.filter (fun s -> s <> "")) | ||
| #else | ||
| !Config.load_path | ||
| #endif |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is starting to get hard to read ^^' Maybe consider extracting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call - I've tidied it a bit
panglesd
left a comment
panglesd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's merge so that the many oxcaml PRs can be rebased!
| conflicts: [ | ||
| "ocaml-option-bytecode-only" | ||
| "oxcaml-compiler" {< "5.2.0minus31"} | ||
| "oxcaml-compiler" {< "5.2.0minus39"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't it be
| "oxcaml-compiler" {< "5.2.0minus39"} | |
| "oxcaml-compiler" {!= "5.2.0minus39"} |
?
I just tried to install odoc on oxcaml minus39, and instead of failing as not compatible, it tried (and failed without this PR).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the plan was to be 'optimistic' - what we should do is modify the opam file for odoc.3.2.1 in opam-repository to have an upper bound, but to leave this as is, just in case by some miracle minus47 comes out next week and it doesn't require changes :-)
Note that we'll need to do some work to handle module types with `with kind` expressions. For now, I've changed it to return an option and switched to `filter_map`. The other changes are mostly mechanical.
fe9f26b to
7906dad
Compare
3 participants
Note that we'll need to do some work to handle module types with
with kindexpressions. For now, I've changed it to return an option and switched tofilter_map. The other changes are mostly mechanical.