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 AAA08613; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:54:42 +0200 (MET DST) 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 AAA08144 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:54:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from hod.void.org (p5085DCD8.dip.t-dialin.net [80.133.220.216]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g78Msej01157; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:54:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mamous@localhost) by hod.void.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00720; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:19:16 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: hod.void.org: mamous set sender to leypold@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de using -f From: "M E Leypold @ labnet" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15456.59140.526162.220884@hod.void.org> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:19:16 +0100 To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem) In-Reply-To: <20020204190857.L2338@verdot.inria.fr> References: <9BE7FA48-1771-11D6-A336-003065BDAA76@ece.ucsb.edu> <15454.38553.300800.53941@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20020204155242.B2338@verdot.inria.fr> <20020204150839.GE14738@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020204164154.D2338@verdot.inria.fr> <20020204162513.GA22263@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020204180136.F2338@verdot.inria.fr> <20020204174638.GC22676@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020204190857.L2338@verdot.inria.fr> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.4.1 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Daniel de Rauglaudre writes: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 06:46:38PM +0100, Markus Mottl wrote: > > > I am just asking whether the OCaml-team considers major syntax > > improvements in their development strategy at all. > > No. Well, that's a relief. I really had been getting slightly nervous because of this thread. I really prefer the 'old' syntax, though I see the merits of the new syntax when it comes to defining syntax extensions. Too much parentheses in the revised sysntax if you ask me. And as far as I see it, ocamlp4 is really a great tool, if I ever consider experimenting with a new syntax. Regards -- Markus ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners