From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA27181; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:13:49 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA27243 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:13:49 +0100 (MET)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA20381 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:37:35 +0100 (MET)
Received: from cpimssmtpu11.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu11.email.msn.com [207.46.181.86])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g14NbY119872
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 00:37:34 +0100 (MET)
Received: from dylan ([216.161.147.209]) by cpimssmtpu11.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4617);
	 Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:37:39 -0800
Message-ID: <001701c1add4$f5098b80$210148bf@dylan>
From: "dbmcclain" <dbmcclain@email.msn.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: [Caml-list] Re: Syntax Changes in OCaml
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:37:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2002 23:37:39.0195 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEAB24B0:01C1ADD4]
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

I had the distinct impression that the latest release of OCaml already
imposes a (minor) syntax change in that tags on library function arguments
are now mandatory. Is this not the case?

My (mis?)understanding has already prevented my adoption of the latest
version simply because of the effort required to port 20 KLOC of OCaml to
this new imposition. If this is not the case, then I will gladly incorporate
the newest version in my system.

But this greater discussion has me wondering about whether you are talking
of more egregious changes to the language syntax.... If so, it will
certainly push me as a user to consider other alternatives. I don't wish to
spend my time rewriting old code to keep up with a moving target language...

- David McClain, Sr. Scientist, Raytheon Missile Systems Co., Tucson, AZ
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr