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 IAA17369; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:44:49 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 IAA17365 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:44:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f376ilj00413 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:44:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08055 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:44:48 +0200 Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:44:48 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] variant with tuple arg in pattern match? Message-ID: <20010407084448.B8023@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20010406155241.D5178@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: ; from patrick@watson.org on Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:42:38PM -0400 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:42:38PM -0400, Patrick M Doane wrote: > What are the current thoughts about adopting the revised syntax as the > "standard one"? How many programmers use that syntax? Discussions about syntax generally degenerate into quarrels because it is often a question of taste and find a consensus is extremely hard. Adopting it as "standard one" is then not possible. And there is too much code written in OCaml by all users. I wrote this "revised" syntax but I don't think that many people use it. I have no idea of the number, but probably very few. Except me, I just know two persons, one of them already not agreeing one of my choices. I agree to improve this syntax, to change things (I mean in the Camlp4 distribution), but only if there are more than 3 persons interested. Well, everybody can make his own syntax, e.g. starting from the file treating the normal syntax (etc/pa_o.ml) or the file of the revised syntax (meta/pa_r.ml). This revised syntax, even dating from several years, is just an experiment. I would have liked that people experiment other possible syntaxes, but it seems that it is not a subject interesting many people. Less than genealogy, in any case... -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr