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 RAA07479; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:41:09 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA01999 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:41:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA07044 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:05:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from orion.inrets.fr (orion.inrets.fr [137.121.1.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h16G5EP02372 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:05:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from deneb.inrets.fr by orion.inrets.fr (8.12.1/8.7.1); Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:05:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from terre.inrets.fr by deneb.inrets.fr (8.12.1/8.7.6); Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:05:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from sphinx (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by terre.inrets.fr (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA09184 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:05:08 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:10:09 +0100 From: Georges Mariano To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of Camlp4 Message-Id: <20030206171009.4dd1afca.georges.mariano@inrets.fr> In-Reply-To: <20030206152053.A32089@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20030206132829.G19706@verdot.inria.fr> <20030206152053.A32089@pauillac.inria.fr> Organization: INRETS-ESTAS X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.4claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:20:53 +0100 Xavier Leroy 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