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 XAA24473; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:38:44 +0200 (MET DST) 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 XAA24515 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:38:43 +0200 (MET DST) 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 g4GLcg120712; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:38:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id XAA05240; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:38:41 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:38:41 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4/OCaml [was: Generating C stubs] Message-ID: <20020516213841.GA4921@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel de Rauglaudre , caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020515111328.A13106@fr.thalesgroup.com> <193C71C6-67E9-11D6-BB25-0003934491C2@lasmea.univ-bpclermont.fr> <20020515141716.A19272@fr.thalesgroup.com> <20020516070628.GA2334@bik-gmbh.de> <20020516073406.GA1614@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020516211342.A2924@verdot.inria.fr> <86ptzvrif2.fsf@laurelin.dementia.org> <20020516214412.K2924@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020516214412.K2924@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 Thu, 16 May 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:39:45PM -0400, John Prevost wrote: > > Really? Why did someone decide that inclusion was a bad idea? > I say it. Camlp4 and the attempts to improve the syntax have been > considered *officially* by the OCaml team as a "not serious" work > and a "loss of time". As I worried about that, and asked for more > information, it has been confirmed by the team, moreover with several > personnal attacks. Sigh. I also don't want to mess with social issues at INRIA, but find it strange indeed that this is the official line. The only reason so far why I didn't use camlp4 too often in the past was _because_ it obviously didn't get enough official support. Its addition to the standard distribution seemed like a good idea to me. I consider it a very useful tool for a language that is still a somewhat moving target and which may require syntax changes in the future. Those could be done with much less hassle given a powerful tool. Not to mention extensions needed by users. The syntax question has already been raised here several times so I don't want to do it again. Suffice it to say that OCaml _has_ syntactic problems about which beginners stumble frequently as I still remember from my beginner time and as I can observe with people whom I have just recently converted. One can get accustomed to and work around those issues, but this doesn't really make them go away. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners