From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4058A7ED28
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:30:56 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwCAFWAx09KN1ZKm2dsb2JhbABEgx2CMa5fAQEBAQEICQsJFCeCGQEFI1YQCw4MAiYCAkcQBhuIAwSmNpJFgSOJboQ0MmADmlQTjQY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,692,1330902000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="146053934"
Received: from mail6.webfaction.com (HELO smtp.webfaction.com) ([74.55.86.74])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 31 May 2012 16:30:28 +0200
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (7-234.197-178.cust.bluewin.ch [178.197.234.7])
	by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0101A210503B;
	Thu, 31 May 2012 09:30:25 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:30:18 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
To: Dmitry Grebeniuk <gdsfh1@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <17746B364433484593CBA5C5BF900FC2@erratique.ch>
In-Reply-To: <CAPi0vKVivCUT7YKtca6W7HtXyTYOzsdQrKh6KpyXBuWiJUbjng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2fdNZ+-COr_HWoD_q1JS2uV1syRfaXkncokrtdxD45qyZnCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <jptm5g$bul$1@dough.gmane.org> <4FC61595.6070009@frisch.fr>
 <4FC62B53.20504@gmail.com> <4FC76B3E.2070509@frisch.fr>
 <CAPi0vKVivCUT7YKtca6W7HtXyTYOzsdQrKh6KpyXBuWiJUbjng@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6 (build 1081.27)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Syntax extensions without Camlp4


Le jeudi, 31 mai 2012 =C3=A0 15:21, Dmitry Grebeniuk a =C3=A9crit :=20=20
> But how will people otherwise discover the beauty of
> revised syntax if camlp4 will accept original syntax?


It could have been beautiful if the dev team had gradually forced us to tra=
nsition to it. Having not, it should be considered inexistant in my opinion=
. It just brings more confusion and fragmentation around the OCaml system.=
=20=20

I don't have problems with OCaml's lack of popularity, but still let's try =
not to make it totally irrelevant by having at least two different syntaxes=
 for it.=20=20

Best,

Daniel