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 WAA25610; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:50:18 +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 WAA25872 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:50:18 +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 g96KoH526652 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:50:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20278 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:50:17 +0200 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:50:17 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4 Message-ID: <20021006225017.G20005@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20021006220127.B20005@verdot.inria.fr> <200210062028.g96KShi14815@sarg.ryerson.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200210062028.g96KShi14815@sarg.ryerson.ca>; from dmason@sarg.ryerson.ca on Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:28:43PM -0400 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:28:43PM -0400, Dave Mason wrote: > I don't know who decided that camlp4 was the way to do that, but > somebody did, and so I hope that at least that much of camlp4 comes as > part of the ocaml distribution. I did. Actually, the streams are just syntactic sugar, and their place is in a preprocessor. In the very first version of OCaml, there were no streams. I had added them, because there were not Camlp4 at this time. The problem of the streams inside OCaml is that the generated code is very inefficient. To be more efficient, one has to optimize the code (the generated source code), and it is very easy to do with Camlp4 (thanks to the quotations) and very hard in OCaml (no quotation and, moreover, a syntax tree too complicated). > It may meet your (Daniel's) personal wishes that camlp4 be separated > from ocaml, but I think that for the rest of us, it is better that it > be shipped with ocaml. For me it is better also. But I cannot work under a system whose director considers my work as a "waste of time". Sorry. Or explain him to stop telling that! -- 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