[Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi everybody,

I don't refuse to develop Camlp4, I would be happy to continue improving
it, fixing bugs and helping users. I just say that, for internal political
reasons, I want that Camlp4 is distributed separately from OCaml.

If this condition is accepted, you are going to have the better Camlp4
I can do, and all requests from users are welcome. If it is not, I
stop developping it and you are going to get a Camlp4 loosing its
qualities little by little, because nobody knows Camlp4 like me.

Therefore, if you want that Camlp4 be good and better, ask Michel
Mauny from the Cristal Project of INRIA, to accept the separation.
Camlp4 was developped separately the years before and everything
went well.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Jérôme Marant]

En réponse à Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr>:

> Hi everybody,

Hi,

> I don't refuse to develop Camlp4, I would be happy to continue
> improving
> it, fixing bugs and helping users. I just say that, for internal
> political
> reasons, I want that Camlp4 is distributed separately from OCaml.
> 
> If this condition is accepted, you are going to have the better Camlp4
> I can do, and all requests from users are welcome. If it is not, I
> stop developping it and you are going to get a Camlp4 loosing its
> qualities little by little, because nobody knows Camlp4 like me.

What are the technical reasons why it is better to develop it
outside OCaml that inside?

You already raised this problem in the past and it is pretty clear
that most users wanted to see it shipped with OCaml because they
think you can't separate them.
How about leaving political reasons aside and pleasing users
with living with the current situation?
Users don't have to be witnesses of your personal problems, IMHO.

Cheers,

--
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
              <jerome.marant@free.fr>

http://marant.org
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0100, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I don't refuse to develop Camlp4, I would be happy to continue improving
> it, fixing bugs and helping users. I just say that, for internal political
> reasons, I want that Camlp4 is distributed separately from OCaml.
> 
> If this condition is accepted, you are going to have the better Camlp4
> I can do, and all requests from users are welcome. If it is not, I
> stop developping it and you are going to get a Camlp4 loosing its
> qualities little by little, because nobody knows Camlp4 like me.
> 
> Therefore, if you want that Camlp4 be good and better, ask Michel
> Mauny from the Cristal Project of INRIA, to accept the separation.
> Camlp4 was developped separately the years before and everything
> went well.

Mmm, if i am not wrong, camlp4 was developped separatedly, but had a
dependency on the ocaml source to build. I don't personally use camlp4,
but i feel that build depending on the ocaml sources is a nightmare for
package maintainers like me. So my personal preference on this would be
to keep it in the ocaml package, or remove it but in a way that imposes
no build dependencies on the ocaml source. That said, it is a long time
ago, and i was not the camlp4 maintainer, so i may be wrong in
remembering that.

Anyway, would you care to give a bit more details about the practical
results of the separation ? What about the streams ?

Is it really not possible to resolv your political differences (with
political, i guess you mean caml politics, not the other ones :)).

Friendly,

Sven Luther
> 
> -- 
> Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
> 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
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:01:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> Mmm, if i am not wrong, camlp4 was developped separatedly, but had a
> dependency on the ocaml source to build. I don't personally use camlp4,
> but i feel that build depending on the ocaml sources is a nightmare for
> package maintainers like me.

I don't say that there is no drawback (with "nightmare", you exaggerate).
Just consider the drawbacks of the different solutions.

> Anyway, would you care to give a bit more details about the practical
> results of the separation ? What about the streams ?

The streams could be put back in the OCaml distribution as they were
before. If the separation is accepted, I can put them in the OCaml
archive with, better, some small code to avoid the problem of missing
of tail recursion which was there before.

> Is it really not possible to resolv your political differences (with
> political, i guess you mean caml politics, not the other ones :)).

Human reasons are political reasons. I am not a machine to produce
code and what I ask is not too much. As the creator of Camlp4, I
have the right to speak about my conditions of work and the right
to say how my work have to be distributed. If you ignore it, it
is normal that I stop working.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
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

RE: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Mattias Waldau]

> I don't refuse to develop Camlp4, I would be happy to 
> continue improving it, fixing bugs and helping users. I just 
> say that, for internal political reasons, I want that Camlp4 
> is distributed separately from OCaml.

Daniel, please reconsider! I didn't use Camlp4 before 
it was in the normal distribution, and I am probably 
not the only one. By being part of the general distribution,
you get many more users.

/mattias

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Xavier Leroy]

As release manager of the OCaml distribution, the time has come to
make a clear statement on this Camlp4 issue.

In 2001, both Daniel de Rauglaudre (the designer and implementor of
Camlp4) and the rest of the OCaml development team agreed to integrate
the distribution of Camlp4 within the OCaml distribution.  The primary
goal was to enhance the users' experience by making it much easier to
install Camlp4.  Other goals included giving greater visibility to
Daniel's excellent, high-quality work on Camlp4.  I believe these
goals were met beyond original expectations, and the merge was
beneficial to all parties involved.

Later, Daniel proposed that Camlp4 should be removed from the OCaml
distribution, and again be distributed separately.  The other OCaml
developers, as well as those users that voiced their opinions on this
mailing list, were not favorable to this split, as it appeared (to
them) to be a step backwards.  

Merging Camlp4 and OCaml was a collective decision.  Undoing this
merge would have to be a collective decision also, and no such
decision has been taken.  Daniel disagrees with this, and threatens
to stop working on Camlp4 as a consequence.  That is his right, but
this threat isn't going to change the decision.  

Camlp4 remains part of the OCaml distribution, and will be maintained
like everything else.  Yes, it will probably not evolve as quickly as
if Daniel was still working on it.  and Daniel's programming talents
will be missed.  However, all the features of the current Camlp4 (that
from release 3.06 of OCaml) will still be available and properly
maintained in the future releases of OCaml.

Hope this clears up the uncertainty and doubts.

- Xavier Leroy
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Sven Luther]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 03:20:53PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> Camlp4 remains part of the OCaml distribution, and will be maintained
> like everything else.  Yes, it will probably not evolve as quickly as
> if Daniel was still working on it.  and Daniel's programming talents
> will be missed.  However, all the features of the current Camlp4 (that
> from release 3.06 of OCaml) will still be available and properly
> maintained in the future releases of OCaml.

Is it not possible to have it both way ? Have camlp4 stay in ocaml as
usual, and have a second camlp4 which could be used as a drop-in
replacement, which Daniel could make evolve more accordying to his
wishes, and were parts can be folded back into the ocaml camlp4 version
as they mature, prove themselves, whatever. This would met both yours
and Daniel's wish, and also be a good thing for the users who could
choose between both version for their own code. This kind of dual
developpment track has already shown it works for other project, as for
example the XFree86/DRI dual developpment trees, and there is no reason
it would not work for ocaml also. Sure it would mean a bit of
fragmentation, but i guess most code that needs to get shared does not
use camlp4 anyway, or at least could be coded in a compatible way.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Xavier Leroy]

> Is it not possible to have it both way ? Have camlp4 stay in ocaml as
> usual, and have a second camlp4 which could be used as a drop-in
> replacement, which Daniel could make evolve more accordying to his
> wishes, and were parts can be folded back into the ocaml camlp4 version
> as they mature, prove themselves, whatever.

That would be 100% fine with me (and, I guess, everyone else but Daniel).
Indeed, that's exactly how the Camlp4 in the OCaml 3.06 distribution
was produced.

But what Daniel demands now is that Camlp4 be removed entirely from
the OCaml distribution, and this is just not going to happen.

- Xavier Leroy
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Georges Mariano]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:20:53 +0100
Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> wrote:

> developers, as well as those users that voiced their opinions on this
> mailing list, were not favorable to this split, as it appeared (to
> them) to be a step backwards.  

Well, I think that choosing the way where ddr will stop working on
camlp4 (thus keeping camlp4 in its current state instead of allowing it
to progress [which is the real interest in the field of software
enginnering research]) is also a step backwards.

I don't think that it is a too huge price to pay if the "freedom" of ddr
is the price of the camlp4's progress... In those days, I have to manage
approximatively more than 600 pieces of software to keep my computer
doing what I want     
> Hope this clears up the uncertainty and doubts.

Well, not really but it doesn't really matter since I'm suspecting that
we are not totally informed (from both "sources" ;-) about all aspects
of the «crisis»... 

(sorry) I can't remember if the following way has been exposed on this
list :

Can we imagine a kind of camlp4 fork ?  That is, ddr freely working on
its own "camlp4+" and the OCaml maintaining the "current" camlp4 inside
the distribution ?  
Daniel, what do you think about this ??


Cheers

-- 
mailto:georges.mariano@inrets.fr     tel: (33) 03 20 43 84 06   
INRETS, 20 rue Élisée Reclus         fax: (33) 03 20 43 83 59   
BP 317 -- 59666 Villeneuve d'Ascq       
http://www3.inrets.fr/estas/mariano
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Markus Mottl]

On Sun, 06 Oct 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
> the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However
> it was a good compromise.

I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short:

  * Camlp4 is useful.

  * Camlp4 should be part of the main distribution, because a not
    insignificant number of people uses it, be it for streams or
    different syntax.

  * Development and stable versions are absolutely common in software
    development. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be
    corresponding branches in the CVS, which keeps good track of the
    differences. No need to separate Camlp4 from the rest of the project:
    just agree on release dates and that's it.

  * Concerning the point that somebody says "X is a waste of time". My
    PhD-supervisor thinks that OCaml is a waste of time. So what? I
    don't like Prolog...

Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a
fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy
for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-)

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

Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4

[Kontra, Gergely]

>I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short:
>
>  * Camlp4 is useful.

>Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a
>fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy
>for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-)

I agree, camlp4 IS useful. (Exploring the alternative syntax)
I just afraid of developing in ocaml, if there exists two version of the
syntax. Sorry to say, but I cannot say much clever about this issue, but
I think the main goal is to have ONE version of syntax, which is clean.
But I know many people used to the old syntax, so I really
don't know how to handle it. As a newbie to ocaml, I found, that the
alternative syntax helps us to write correct code (but to tell the truth
I don't agree with some of the decisions... Eg. it uses value, not val,
explaining ocaml syntax doesn't have abbreviated keywords. But it does
have! The fun keyword, which is not called function. Anyway, this is not
a bad thing, since SML use fun also, so I think one can have val, which
is exactly the same in SML.
Another thing, that
bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit silly mixture of some
shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done or { ... } would be a
good choice (or support both, this way bash and C programmers will be
happy ;))
Ok, I know, you'll say: "Then why don't you write your own syntax?"

Ooops, so I'd like to know what is the tendecy: will the alternative
syntax be a new standard, or users should use the old syntax, and the
alternative syntax supporting is their problem?

ps: If this was discussed, please tell me where can I read it.

Gergo

+-[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+
|         Email: kgergely@mcl.hu,  kgergely@turul.eet.bme.hu          |
|  URL:   turul.eet.bme.hu/~kgergely    Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656     |
+-------"Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!"-------+
.
Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio: http://hu.php.net

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Kontra, Gergely wrote:

> I agree, camlp4 IS useful. (Exploring the alternative syntax)
> I just afraid of developing in ocaml, if there exists two version of the
> syntax.

No: there is no two versions of the syntax, just one. OCaml has its
syntax, and it is the official one.

Let us compare with X window and the window managers. The X server
does not give by default any window manager: when you start X, you
just have a background and a mouse, and you can move it, that's all.
X can receive orders to create windows, move them, but by default,
it does nothing.

This is like the core of OCaml: the semantics. Now, it is impossible
to have a semantics without syntax. The same way, it is impossible to
have a system of windows without window manager. Hence, there is a
syntax, a given syntax. It could be compared with, say, the window
manager KDE.

Now, you man consider that KDE has many defaults. You may be
insterested in playing with "window managers", i.e. "syntax
tools". This is the gool of Camlp4.

OCaml does not need Camlp4, and it seems that the tendancy of the
Cristal team does not include experiments and developments about
syntax.

  ----

But Camlp4 can be useful even if you want to stay inside the official
syntax: you can do your small syntax extensions, you can use
quotations, you can use extensible grammars, all of that in the
official syntax. BTW, the manual and tutorial of Camlp4 gives its
examples in the official syntax.

The revised syntax, and, the Scheme syntax are just games with Camlp4.
Games or... research! We want to proove that many things can be done
with syntax. Perhaps, latter, a good consensus can happen with one of
the syntax Camlp4 developped. For the moment, it is not the case: the
OCaml team prefers keeping its syntax, despite its drawbacks that the
Revised syntax tries to fix.

I add that having its own syntx is not a problem of communication:
Camlp4 provides a pretty printer in the official syntax. You can
therefore understand the programs of the other people. And the
Revised syntax is close to the official syntax: you can read it
directly.

> Another thing, that bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit
> silly mixture of some shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done
> or { ... } would be a good choice (or support both, this way bash
> and C programmers will be happy ;))

Ha, if you are interested in the "Revised syntax", we can talk about
its choices, indeed. For the moment, I did not found people really
interested in making a "team" about a "New Revised syntax". The main
reason is that people are not shocked by the same things! We could
not know what are the points we want to talk about.

> Ooops, so I'd like to know what is the tendecy: will the alternative
> syntax be a new standard, or users should use the old syntax, and the
> alternative syntax supporting is their problem?

IMHO, the OCaml team is very very far from adopting a new syntax. But
using alternative syntaxes cannot be considered as a "problem" thanks
to the flexibility of Camlp4: I wrote GeneWeb entirely in Revised
syntax (45000 lines of code) and I am sure that it prevents nobody
to make changes in it.

-- 
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Oleg]

On Friday 11 October 2002 09:15 am, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> IMHO, the OCaml team is very very far from adopting a new syntax.

Perhaps we could take a survey regarding the syntax preferences to help paint 
a larger picture. I personally find using the default syntax rather 
error-prone. 

Cheers
Oleg
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:45:00PM -0400, Oleg wrote:

> Perhaps we could take a survey regarding the syntax preferences to
> help paint a larger picture. I personally find using the default
> syntax rather error-prone.

Me too, and, actually, the OCaml team also.

But we don't agree with each other on what a good syntax should be,
and even not which small changes could be done. We had many arguments
some years ago about that, we did not improve anything (except, maybe,
the uppercase constructors), all discussions ended with "this is just
syntax" (insinuation: what is important is semantics).

I gave up, but if you want to speak about that, and propose things,
please do.

-- 
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

Re: [Caml-list] Pattern matching and strings

[Luc Maranget]

> I have to do a little bit of pattern matching on strings. My
 > first instict was to write something like the following.
 >
 > let foo x = ...
 > let bar x = ...
 > ... = function
 > | "foo" ^ rest -> foo rest
 > | "bar" ^ rest -> bar rest
 > | _ -> raise Unrecognized


I have thought about that a little.

My first guess is that such matching should be distinct from
ordinary PM, mixing the two would be an implementor nightmare.

My second guess is that what you want is regexp matching + a construct
for binding subparts of the matched string (maybe I am wrong here).

Using ocamllex syntax for patterns (+ as) your exemple could be written

regexpmatch s with
| "foo" (_* as x)  -> foo x
| "bar" (_* as x)  -> bar x
| _*               -> raise Unrecognized


This would be much nicer than using various regexp packages API, the
real add-on being the variables in place of \1, \2 etc.

Of course this would work only in the case where all patterns are known
statically and implementation is not 100% trivial, if you want some
warnings and compile-time production of matching automata.
(ie if you do not rely on regexp package).

In fact such, an extension is probably feasible using camlp4 and this
would probably be the best solution, to avoid extra-complexity in the
compiler itself.


In the end, do not hold your breath. I won't probably do that.
But it can be a interesting project for a compiler course...

--Luc



-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Pattern matching and strings

[Alessandro Baretta]

Luc Maranget wrote:

> I have thought about that a little.
> 
> My first guess is that such matching should be distinct from
> ordinary PM, mixing the two would be an implementor nightmare.
> 
> My second guess is that what you want is regexp matching + a construct
> for binding subparts of the matched string (maybe I am wrong here).
> 
> Using ocamllex syntax for patterns (+ as) your exemple could be written
> 
> regexpmatch s with
> | "foo" (_* as x)  -> foo x
> | "bar" (_* as x)  -> bar x
> | _*               -> raise Unrecognized

This is basically what I was looking for.

> This would be much nicer than using various regexp packages API, the
> real add-on being the variables in place of \1, \2 etc.

Precisely.

> ...
> 
> In fact such, an extension is probably feasible using camlp4 and this
> would probably be the best solution, to avoid extra-complexity in the
> compiler itself.

I really must get around to learning Camlp4. Why did no one 
teach it to me when I was at the X?

> In the end, do not hold your breath. I won't probably do that.
> But it can be a interesting project for a compiler course...
> 
> --Luc

;)

Alex

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:

> I really must get around to learning Camlp4. Why did no one 
> teach it to me when I was at the X?

Camlp4 is not really part of OCaml: it is just an OCaml program.

It has been included in OCaml in version 3.04, but I have considered
since several months that it is an error, especially as the OCaml
compiler does not use it, and as some people of the OCaml team have
still considered that it is "waste of time".

It is actually now developped separatedely (there is a separated CVS
version), and I am fighting in order that it is distributed separately
in next version 3.07.

-- 
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Sven LUTHER]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:34:51AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> 
> > I really must get around to learning Camlp4. Why did no one 
> > teach it to me when I was at the X?
> 
> Camlp4 is not really part of OCaml: it is just an OCaml program.
> 
> It has been included in OCaml in version 3.04, but I have considered
> since several months that it is an error, especially as the OCaml
> compiler does not use it, and as some people of the OCaml team have
> still considered that it is "waste of time".
> 
> It is actually now developped separatedely (there is a separated CVS
> version), and I am fighting in order that it is distributed separately
> in next version 3.07.

:((((

Will the streams be again part of ocaml then, or not ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
l> 
> -- 
> 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
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:47:34PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:

> Will the streams be again part of ocaml then, or not ?

This can be discussed with the OCaml team.

-- 
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Michel Mauny]

Alessandro Baretta wrote/écrivait (Oct 04 2002, 09:38PM +0200):
> I really must get around to learning Camlp4. Why did no one 
> teach it to me when I was at the X?

Any X teacher around? :-)

Daniel gave his personal point of view about what should be the status
of Camlp4, whereas the question was why teachers at École
Polytechnique didn't include Camlp4 in their OCaml courses. Slightly
different matters.

As a consequence, let me repeat that Camlp4 is still part of the OCaml
distribution, as all of you noticed. Even though the process of
updating Camlp4 in the CVS OCaml tree is more painful than before, the
camlp4 and the ocaml/camlp4 trees get merged at least at each
distribution.

So, there is no reason so far to worry about the status of OCaml
streams.

Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote/écrivait (Oct 05 2002, 02:42PM +0200):
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:47:34PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Will the streams be again part of ocaml then, or not ?
> This can be discussed with the OCaml team.

Done.

-- 
Michel Mauny
Michel.Mauny@inria.fr
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 03:41:33PM +0200, Michel Mauny wrote:

> As a consequence, let me repeat that Camlp4 is still part of the OCaml
> distribution, as all of you noticed.

Michel Mauny gave here his personnal point of view, but told me, some
time ago, that "liberty of expression" is good for research. I then use
it, as it is my right, to contest the political decision of keeping
Camlp4 in OCaml, which can only come to the end of Camlp4.

If I say: "Camlp4 must be separated", it is just to say, to tell
everybody of you, that I want to continue to work on it, to improve
it, to receive your remarks and to debug it.

Therefore, I continue fighting for the separation. Except, of course,
if insults against my work are no more considered as "liberty of expression"
and if I can be sure that these insults stop.

-- 
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Michel Mauny]

Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote/écrivait (Oct 05 2002, 03:47PM +0200):
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 03:41:33PM +0200, Michel Mauny wrote:
> 
> > As a consequence, let me repeat that Camlp4 is still part of the OCaml
> > distribution, as all of you noticed.
> 
> Michel Mauny gave here his personnal point of view, 

Well, the sentence you quote looks more like a fact, to me.

-- 
Michel Mauny
Michel.Mauny@inria.fr
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 (Was: Pattern matching and strings)

[Alessandro Baretta]

Michel Mauny wrote:
> Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote/écrivait (Oct 05 2002, 03:47PM +0200):
> 
>>On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 03:41:33PM +0200, Michel Mauny wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As a consequence, let me repeat that Camlp4 is still part of the OCaml
>>>distribution, as all of you noticed.
>>
>>Michel Mauny gave here his personnal point of view, 
> 
> 
> Well, the sentence you quote looks more like a fact, to me.
> 

I am terribly sorry to have restarted this latent flame-war 
on the status of CamlP4. I hope the best for the evolution 
of the language--including such powerful extensions as a 
CamlP4, and shame to me for not having learned it yet.

Alex

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:13:55PM +0200, Alessandro Baretta wrote:

> I am terribly sorry to have restarted this latent flame-war 
> on the status of CamlP4. I hope the best for the evolution 
> of the language--including such powerful extensions as a 
> CamlP4, and shame to me for not having learned it yet.

Don't worry: Michel was right by telling that it is just a pretext for
me to speak again about this problem. After all that time, I just saw
that he did nothing to resolve this problem, and I just take that
occasion to speak about it.

Bury a conflict is never a solution.

We all want that OCaml and Camlp4 succeed. In this case, things must
be clear between us, and they are not.

-- 
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