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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637F8BC0A for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:36:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB13abLo021052 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:36:41 +0100 Received: from ppp37-180.lns2.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO rosella) ([59.167.37.180]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2006 13:51:15 +1030 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,482,1157293800"; d="scan'208"; a="15373769:sNHT28195412" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web From: skaller To: Tom Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, Philippe Wang , brogoff In-Reply-To: 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> <1164853811.9646.2.camel@rosella.wigram> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:21:13 +1100 Message-Id: <1164943273.21781.8.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 456FA345.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; o'reilly:01 0100,:01 sml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 camlp:01 reuse:01 sml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 thu:05 vague:07 On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 19:20 +0100, Tom wrote: > > 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? > > For me, personally, the question is not whether it can be done, but > whether I want it or not! The point is to reuse existing SML code -- not write you new code in SML, though it may be useful to do that sometimes too. For example, if you want high performance you might want the option of using the whole program analyser Mlton for the final product, but use Ocaml for development. I actually have a vague interest in that. At least in part, being able to use a *standardised* syntax, good or not, may offer some advantages. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net