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 SAA10975; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:01:38 +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 SAA11069 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:01:37 +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 g14H1a108706 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:01:36 +0100 (MET) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18054 for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:01:36 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:01:36 +0100 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem) Message-ID: <20020204180136.F2338@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> <20020204164154.D2338@verdot.inria.fr> <20020204162513.GA22263@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: <20020204162513.GA22263@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at>; from markus@oefai.at on Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:25:13PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:25:13PM +0100, Markus Mottl wrote: > > There are very few users interested in the revised syntax. > Because it is not standard. What do you call "standard"? Yes, my revised syntax is "standard": it is "standard" Camlp4: the sources of Camlp4 are in the revised syntax. If you speak of "standard", somebody told a few time ago in this mailing list: "why the syntax of OCaml is not the "standard" one?": because it was not the one of "Standard" ML. What is the standard? Except "what most of the people use"? I mean the programmers in OCaml. > If I can use camlp4 conveniently to work with my existing sources as if > no change had happened, I wouldn't mind, but I fear that not everything > would work smoothly right now. I compile the whole compiler with -pp camlp4o, the otherlibs included without any problem. I am pretty sure that it would work for your code with minor changes which would remain backward compatible. Try it out. > It should at least in principle be possible (though a lot of work) > to design all language tools in such a way that they accept ASTs > annotated with position information (for exact error messages), thus > making them completely independent of concrete syntax. There is a tool which works like that: Camlp4. You get the position location exactly of your input file. I even tried with "zoggy", Maxence Guesdon's program: his input is XML. When you compile the file, if there are typing errors, they are shown in the XML file. > > 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? > > I don't quite understand this argument: bugs can happen during every > change, what is the problem with syntax changes in particular? The problem is that if you changed your syntax, you cannot "downgrade" your compiler to the previous version. If you see the problem three months after having upgraded, it is too late to change: you cannot distribute your software to your customers with your bug fixed, then your customers must continue with the same version, then the missiles are launched in the next full moon, then the world explodes. > I disagree here. People need a "soft kick" to change. No: people will accept a change if they need some. But I am quite sure that many people think this: "yes there is a problem of syntax in the language, but not so important". I often heard the argument: "it is only syntax!". A certain "Markus Mottl" telling a few mails ago: "Though semantics is usually considered the more interesting part of languages..." -- 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