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 OAA05246; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:26:03 +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 OAA04284 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:26:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA32593 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:51:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.gruposbd.com ([195.76.154.102]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g15ApE910346 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:51:14 +0100 (MET) Received: by mail.gruposbd.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 44DFE13C010; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:50:59 +0100 (CET) To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] Syntax change Message-ID: <1012906259.3c5fb91341efb@webmail.sbdconsultors.com> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:50:59 +0100 (CET) From: Christian Gillot MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.3 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, As a newbie, I feeled puzzled by the fact that there's two syntaxes for ocaml. I understand camlp4 is really useful to extend ocaml on a _project-basis_ but it's awkward that there is two syntaxes for ocaml. It's pretty clear that the revised syntax is a progress. Nevertheless, it'll stay in its current confidential use as long as it's not the default syntax, aka the standard syntax. Because the newbie will have a natural tendance to use the "standard" syntax. Moreover as I said before it's puzzling to have two syntaxes widely used. Which one use ? And if you use one, when you'll see the other one you'll say : What do this code mean ? That's why all the ocaml keywords are only avaible and used in english rather than alse a french version, a deutsch version, etc. Clearly we need a compromise. As Daniel said before the INRIA team will not push forward another syntax. So what about the process in which is involved Perl6 ? I mean all the talented people write RFC and let the users comment them in order to reach a benefit for everybody ? That would be great and moreover a "open" approach to the problem. My 0.02 € -- Christian Gillot GNU/Linux developer ------------------- 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