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 JAA32213; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:02:52 +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 JAA32208 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:02:51 +0200 (MET DST) 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 g4H72of03644 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:02:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14555 for caml-list@inria.fr; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:02:50 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:02:50 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Camlp4/OCaml Message-ID: <20020517090250.C14342@verdot.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> <3CE43F25.7070206@htec.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3CE43F25.7070206@htec.demon.co.uk>; from cq@htec.demon.co.uk on Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:22:13AM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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