From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D75ABC0A for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:30:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kAU2UI9R016622 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:30:20 +0100 Received: from ppp37-180.lns2.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO rosella) ([59.167.37.180]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 13:00:16 +1030 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,476,1157293800"; d="scan'208"; a="14761345:sNHT78971627" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web From: skaller To: Philippe Wang Cc: brogoff , caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info> References: <45688DAE.7010309@ccr.jussieu.fr> <456AAABE.5020405@irisa.fr> <456CA3B7.1020508@philippewang.info> <9d3ec8300611281433q5509ccby65937fd4384f5a25@mail.gmail.com> <456CD1E7.80908@philippewang.info> <456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:30:11 +1100 Message-Id: <1164853811.9646.2.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 456E423A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; o'reilly:01 0100,:01 syntax:01 gotchas:01 camlp:01 syntax:01 sml:01 subset:01 sml:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 revised:02 On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 19:10 +0100, Philippe Wang wrote: > brogoff a écrit : > > > That would be a more interesting comment if you gave some reasons > > as to why you believe that. I prefer the Revised syntax, for reasons > > of overall consistency and because it removes a few gotchas, but for > > various nontechnical reasons (tiny user community, questions about the > > future of CamlP4 and the level of support for it, etc.) would not > > switch over. > > Maybe it's because I know the standard syntax quite well. > Or maybe because there are some things that are too weird in the revised > syntax, like lists stuff. What might actually be interesting and useful is standard conforming Standard MetaLanguage (SML) syntax, or a good subset of it. I wonder how far that could go? Is there anything in SML that you can't do in Ocaml with similar enough syntax that Camlp4 could cope with it? -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net