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 MAA00142; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:56:33 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA32495 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:56:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA19085 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:21:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from chinon (r46m129.cybercable.tm.fr [195.132.46.129]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g15LLO923421 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:21:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from jerome by chinon with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16YD1v-0000Sd-00 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:21:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:21:31 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-15?B?Suly9G1l?= Marant To: The Trade Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax foo Message-ID: <20020205212131.GA1707@marant.org> Mail-Followup-To: The Trade References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:48:06PM -0800, james woodyatt wrote: Hi James, > + With the inclusion of camlp4 in the distribution, I don't have to > care about the syntax of the language. There's a parser and a printer > to handle any conversions I may ever need to make. If there isn't, I > can write one. In the end, the syntax is irrelevant; it's the semantics > I care about. I am not here to complain about syntax. > > Here's why I don't want to see the Ocaml team make any changes to the > syntax: I'm certain they have more important things they could be > doing. Like, for example, support for dynamic loading of native code on > Mac OS X. I agree with all what you said. The current syntax is the one that was adopted in the very beginning of Caml. Its syntax is the one which make Caml different from other languages and it has been adopted by people all over the years. Changing it would make the 'OCaml touch' go away. People who want a Haskell-like syntax will have to go for Haskell or use camlp4 which seem to do the job pretty well regarding what people say about it. So, please stop pestering OCaml authors with syntactic considerations, I have no doubt that there are higher priority improvements. (it's up to them to decide or not on this though). Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org ------------------- 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