From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CEABC0B for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:42:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from hades.snarc.org (hades.snarc.org [212.85.152.11]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0EIgJvc026136 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:42:21 +0100 Received: by hades.snarc.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A2961B481; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:41:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:41:48 +0100 To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml compiler features Message-ID: <20070114184148.GA26213@snarc.org> References: <45A87011.8080203@gmail.com> <53c655920701122341l3b95328clf4e9ee40d5656dde@mail.gmail.com> <45AA6966.8010602@gmail.com> <200701141823.32855.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701141823.32855.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Warning: Email may contain unsmilyfied humor and/or satire. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: tab@snarc.org (Vincent Hanquez) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45AA798B.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 camlp:01 compiler:01 syntax:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 syntaxes:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 define:01 construct:02 productive:04 vincent:07 On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 06:23:32PM +0000, Jon Harrop wrote: > > > > If you're bored with > > > > begin/end a good solution might be to define a new construct using > > > > camlp4 instead of hacking the compiler. It's the good advice in > > > > general for syntax problems. > > > > Writing things in camlp4 could help me, but won't improve the world of > > ocaml. > > It will if you do something more productive with camlp4, like try...finally > or ... and create lots of different syntax which make the code unsharable at the end (each one using different syntaxes). I think camlp4 is the not the proper way to extends the language, and is definitevely *NOT* going to improve the world of OCaml. -- Vincent Hanquez