Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem)

[Markus Mottl <markus@oefai.at>]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> In this case, if you want syntax extensions and quotations, you are
> *obliged* to use the revised syntax:
[snip]
> Are you ok for this change? I am against, but if you convice me that
> I am wrong, I can do it.

Though semantics is usually considered the more interesting part of
languages, what are the future plans of the OCaml-team with respect
to syntax? Can you envision defining a new (even saner ;) syntax in
a future release? There have been small (and sometimes larger) syntax
changes all over the time, but how about a major change here?

I haven't been using Daniel's revised syntax yet, but wouldn't mind if the
team introduced this one or a similarly different syntax to clean up the
language as long as it is still possible to reuse modules implemented in
the old syntax (should be easy given camlp4 in the standard distribution).

Otherwise, even if the revised syntax (or an even better one) could be
considered superior, nobody will ever use it if it isn't the standard.

Any suggestions for a flamewar on syntax? ;)

Regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl                                             markus@oefai.at
Austrian Research Institute
for Artificial Intelligence                  http://www.oefai.at/~markus
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr