From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621C0BC57 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:32:19 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAK+//EuFBoIF/2dsb2JhbACSFIx9sl6OMAEEhRODRA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,304,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="63453986" Received: from rabbit.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp (HELO mailhost.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp) ([133.6.130.5]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 26 May 2010 15:32:18 +0200 Received: from mailhost.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9B5B77B; Wed, 26 May 2010 22:32:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailhost.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp (camel-172 [172.16.254.4]) by mailhost.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6757E88AB; Wed, 26 May 2010 22:32:16 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=math.nagoya-u.ac.jp; h= date:message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=alpha; bh=yZn/jgCV5/KNuTRx/oO7nsGoLRg=; b=N48791z2pXB3SCY7JtCjw71C4Dm+ x2/PfJDCBrQsQ3DugaeScKSf2le68DZ0OJ9ctvEZnxiqNh4wZ/BsdhCTReTgZx7x N4s9F2seZSkOlM96SxeSUKefcY56gTpeOOURNRaRzA9XiG7tloPGW5/MTxQK3ZNc Jc/y1++4+wn7zVE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; h=Received:Date:Message-Id:To:Cc:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FzSEbDFqqrxmQwwLdZT2A0E0NvdpdqglMlmEwHG2Do5oG8+UlomWr6GANrKL9jlavBWTklmimdXo0QknTTxq9gS/fTYbH7Ufvui10StIMhjbIpeZXlzjfZvYkYT4CALXuiwxhHl3Xij6BWBOIvoOuXKfzvGd7Rqty9Er2RW+2PA=; c=nofws; d=math.nagoya-u.ac.jp; q=dns; s=alpha Received: from localhost (bsdserver02 [172.16.249.2]) by mailhost.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE4D88A8; Wed, 26 May 2010 22:32:16 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:32:16 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20100526.223216.247146349.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: eliot@colba.net Cc: thomas.hutchinson@sophia.inria.fr, tuareg-mode@googlegroups.com, sds@gnu.org, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] new emacs tuareg mode release From: Jacques Garrigue In-Reply-To: <4BFD1F99.2010009@colba.net> References: <4BFD1F99.2010009@colba.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; emacs:01 tuareg:01 tuareg:01 emacs:01 multiline:01 colorization:01 caml-mode:01 ocaml-mode:01 ocaml-mode:01 hutchinson:98 hacks:01 wrote:01 corrected:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 From: Eliot Handelman > Tom Hutchinson wrote: >> I would be most interested to hear answers to this e-mail. >> >> I too have wondered about the differences between tuareg mode and caml >> mode. >> > One of the major differences I found (emacs 22.3.1) were persistent > screwups involving comments. For > example font-lock didn't work on multiline comments. This gave all > comments an ugly random > colorization. I was very happy to discover this had been fixed in > tuareg. This has been fixed in caml-mode long ago too. I think the main difference is that ocaml-mode is based on very old code, developped originally for caml-light, and was it emacs 18 at that time. It contained various hacks to make it faster, with some bad side effects at times. Overall the bugs have been corrected, but this is probably the case that at one point tuareg mode was more stable. I'm not going to suggest that tuareg mode switch to the ocaml-mode code base, because I think that actually the tuareg code is cleaner. However, for various historical reasons the two code bases are developped in parallel, with some reasonable amount of sharing, so I see no real problem with the current situation. Jacques Garrigue