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 B572DBC0B for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:18:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.141]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0G1IK5F012993 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:18:21 +0100 Received: from ppp14-213.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO rosella) ([59.167.14.213]) by ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2007 11:48:17 +1030 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,193,1167571800"; d="scan'208"; a="72003724:sNHT22507562" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml compiler features From: skaller To: Vincent Hanquez Cc: Martin Jambon , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20070115221717.GA9982@snarc.org> References: <45A87011.8080203@gmail.com> <200701141823.32855.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20070114184148.GA26213@snarc.org> <200701142049.57959.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20070115000544.GA28731@snarc.org> <20070115221717.GA9982@snarc.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:18:11 +1100 Message-Id: <1168910291.9207.62.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45AC27DC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 0100,:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 lambda:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 imho:01 grammar:01 caml-list:01 jambon:01 calculus:01 On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 23:17 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 12:23:32PM -0800, Martin Jambon wrote: > > OCaml is well-enough designed so that there is no "common" syntax > > extension. > > There ARE common syntax extensions. > how many people miss a try-except-finally construct ? > how many people miss a return statement to break the flow of a function. > etc .. I don't miss any of those things .. the point being they're not so 'common' as you might think. I'm a Python programmer too, and I never use 'finally' .. I've never found any use for it. Felix has return statement .. but then Felix has *statements*: executable Ocaml is all expressions, so a return statement would seem out of place. > I'm not talking about weird extensions that ease the life of grammar > writter or lambda calculus , etc .. but really the basic one. One man's nice extensions are weird to another. Many parts of Ocaml are weird (IMHO :) but at least its a shared weirdness. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net