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 NAA01817; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:01:17 +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 NAA01266 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:01:16 +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 g15C1GH13553 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:01:16 +0100 (MET) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23979 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:01:16 +0100 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:01:16 +0100 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Syntax Changes in OCaml Message-ID: <20020205130116.A23898@verdot.inria.fr> References: <001701c1add4$f5098b80$210148bf@dylan> <20020205112335.GB25187@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: <20020205112335.GB25187@chopin.ai.univie.ac.at>; from markus@oefai.at on Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:23:35PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Markus Mottl wrote: > 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. 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". 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. But there is no problem of syntax: if you consider syntax as important, and don't want to have problems with it, you can use the revised syntax. If you consider that object programming is very important, use objects. If you can't live without labels, use labels. I don't want that people imposes me to use objects and labels, and I shall not impose people to use the revised syntax. The language is powerful, it is the reason why we can propose many features and more and more. Yes it is a problem: it is like the different window managers under X window, against the standard of MsWindows of Apple. What is the better way? I don't know. Here we have tried to improve the system, and this is therefore something "like X windows", with the drawback that there are several window-or-syntax managers. Question: what is the better window manager under X window? -- 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