From: Markus Mottl <markus@oefai.at>
To: dbmcclain <dbmcclain@email.msn.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Syntax Changes in OCaml
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:23:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020205112335.GB25187@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001701c1add4$f5098b80$210148bf@dylan>
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, dbmcclain wrote:
> But this greater discussion has me wondering about whether you are
> talking of more egregious changes to the language syntax.... If so,
> it will certainly push me as a user to consider other alternatives. I
> don't wish to spend my time rewriting old code to keep up with a moving
> target language...
There may be a misunderstanding here: the problem with the recent changes,
even if they were rather innocuous, is that you really have to adapt your
sources. At least for me this was not a big deal, because I had mostly
avoided labels so far, but it would be a nightmare if large parts of
the syntax changed.
However, a shift to revised (or another) syntax as default wouldn't be
all this bad: the preprocessor would still handle "normal" syntax, which
means that you'd only have to feed your existing sources through the
preprocessor. This can be done by changing only one line in your Makefile.
You could even continue writing and maintaining code in "normal" syntax,
similar to those few people who are currently using revised syntax as
alternative - without problems other than "social" ones.
The only problem I can imagine for you is that you have to pass
maintainance of your source base to a young programmer who has only been
trained on revised syntax. But even then I don't think that this will be
too serious, because fixing bugs in a slightly different syntax isn't all
this difficult. Mixing revised and normal syntax (in different files, of
course) is absolutely not a problem either: just add a comment to the top
of your files so that the right preprocessor can be chosen automagically
(as is being supported by OcamlMakefile, for example).
A sudden transition to revised syntax would probably cost me less than
a week, most of it due to getting used to the new syntax. I don't know
for sure, but this may be true for the majority of users.
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-05 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-04 23:37 dbmcclain
2002-02-05 11:23 ` Markus Mottl [this message]
2002-02-05 12:01 ` Daniel de Rauglaudre
2002-02-05 12:14 ` Pixel
2002-02-05 12:36 ` Markus Mottl
2002-02-05 14:02 ` Doug Bagley
2002-02-05 18:12 ` Remi VANICAT
2002-02-05 12:11 ` Jérôme Marant
2002-02-05 12:22 ` Jacques Garrigue
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020205112335.GB25187@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at \
--to=markus@oefai.at \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=dbmcclain@email.msn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).