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 QAA07842; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:41:55 +0100 (MET) 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 QAA07932 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:41:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g14Ffs104589 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:41:54 +0100 (MET) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16939 for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:41:54 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:41:54 +0100 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem) Message-ID: <20020204164154.D2338@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020204150839.GE14738@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at>; from markus@oefai.at on Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:08:39PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Markus Mottl wrote: > 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. It has no chance to become the standard if nobody wants to use it... There are very few users interested in the revised syntax. How much do you estimate the chances that people will accept a major change of the syntax? You want my opinion? 0% If you have written an application of 50000 lines of OCaml on 60 files in 5 directories, are you accepting that the new version of OCaml has a very new syntax, very clean and very incompatible with the previous one? And even if you want to convert to it, what is your reaction if the new version of OCaml has a bug in a part very important for you? --- Well, there is no need to impose a new clean standard syntax, because there is Camlp4. If most of people use the revised or any-clean syntax, it becomes a standard de facto. --- I am ok for a definition of a new syntax. I propose the revised syntax as a start of the discussion. I don't propose to start with the normal syntax because it is too much difficult to parse with recursive descent technology. I managed to do it but thanks to hacks. -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- 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