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 QAA07110; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:08:42 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA07491 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:08:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g14F8eX19649; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:08:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from chopin.ai.univie.ac.at (root@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.170]) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id QAA31445; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:08:39 +0100 Received: (from markus@localhost) by chopin.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id QAA21665; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:08:39 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:08:39 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem) Message-ID: <20020204150839.GE14738@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel de Rauglaudre , caml-list@inria.fr References: <9BE7FA48-1771-11D6-A336-003065BDAA76@ece.ucsb.edu> <15454.38553.300800.53941@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20020204155242.B2338@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020204155242.B2338@verdot.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.26i Organization: Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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