Re: [Caml-list] Re: Camlp4/OCaml

[Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr>]

Hi,

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:22:13AM +0100, Christopher Quinn wrote:

> How can camlp4 be unimportant or a waste of time!

Ok, I went too far a little bit: not Camlp4 has been considered as a
waste of time but the revised syntax.

People is allowed not to use it and not to love it, but it is a
proposition, it is an axis of reflexion for possible future ideas.

Mainly, it is the *core* of Camlp4: Camlp4 is completely written with
that syntax and the system of extensible grammars of Camlp4 needs for
the language a syntax with good properties, what the "normal" syntax
does not have (it "works" but with several hacks). Therefore, for me,
telling that the revised syntax is a not serious work is saying that
Camlp4 is not a serious work.

The "officially" that I said in a previous mail means that this
opinion has been told to an important user of OCaml, and that this has
not been denied by the direction of the OCaml team, since two months
(when this story happened).

I have asked for a deny, or for a solution to fix this problem, and
the only answers I got was personal attacks against me, without any
scientific argumentation, and howls where I had no way to give my
opinion.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
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