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 NAA01962; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:41 +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 NAA03235 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g15CacH16064; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:39 +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 NAA13176; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:38 +0100 Received: (from markus@localhost) by chopin.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id NAA27120; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:38 +0100 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:36:38 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Syntax Changes in OCaml Message-ID: <20020205123638.GA26898@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel de Rauglaudre , caml-list@inria.fr References: <001701c1add4$f5098b80$210148bf@dylan> <20020205112335.GB25187@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020205130116.A23898@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020205130116.A23898@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 Tue, 05 Feb 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > There is another point preventing us to change the syntax: there is > no consensus here about how the syntax must be. I made my choices with > the revised syntax, but somebody says that "this construction is ugly", > somebody else says that "that one (another one) is weird", and so on... > No convergence. And people ends with "pfff... this is *only* syntax". When I used the term "revised syntax" I was implicitly including possible changes to satisfy the majority. And I'd never say "this is *only* syntax". "It's *only* syntax" that allows you to actually write down your programs at all. > If the architects don't agree of how the house must be, there is no > chance that the house be built. Therefore there is no plan to propose > or impose (like you would like) a new syntax. I'd suggest that the "revisionists" should publically discuss how they would want syntax to evolve. Other people will surely follow the discussion and comment on it. > I don't want that people imposes me to use objects and labels, and I > shall not impose people to use the revised syntax. To some extent this is comparable, I agree: if one isn't used to e.g. objects (or higher-order modules, for example), understanding other people's code may become even more difficult than if it were in another syntax. But there is also a difference: if I decided to use objects from today on, no automatic tool will get reasonably readable code in, say, "module style" out of my sources, which is not true for purely syntactic differences. Therefore, I'd propose that pretty-printing technology be even further improved, especially what concerns adaptability to user preferences. Then it would become really easy for people to switch to the syntax they like rather than having to stick to the one they started out with or the one which is considered "standard". 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