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=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B3CBBC1 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:34:01 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEADtQEUjAXQIm/2dsb2JhbACsVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,707,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="10049477" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2008 12:34:00 +0200 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m3PAY0GX000768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:34:00 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQCADtQEUjBAkMtiGdsb2JhbACRWgEBAQ8gmkg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,707,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="11918049" Received: from vega.fmf.uni-lj.si (HELO postar.fmf.uni-lj.si) ([193.2.67.45]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2008 12:33:59 +0200 Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.5.1]) by postar.fmf.uni-lj.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC484DEB9D for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:33:56 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at spam.fmf.uni-lj.si Received: from postar.fmf.uni-lj.si ([192.168.5.5]) by localhost (spam.fmf.uni-lj.si [192.168.5.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P5X4IT0Q4Ljv for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [193.2.67.88] (ditka.fmf.uni-lj.si [193.2.67.88]) by postar.fmf.uni-lj.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957E14DEB2D for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:33:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4811B394.6000301@fmf.uni-lj.si> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:33:56 +0200 From: Andrej Bauer Reply-To: Andrej.Bauer@andrej.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Standard syntax extensions ? References: <1209052182.6180.35.camel@Blefuscu> <200804241802.19074.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 4811B398.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; andrej:01 andrej:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 steroids:01 blown:98 caml-list:01 revised:02 languages:03 programming:03 correctly:04 marketing:93 standard:07 Consider these three options: (1) There is a "standard set" of syntax extensions which is not officially part of Ocaml distribution. (2) Official Ocaml syntax is extended with a conservative set of syntax extensions, maybe just "open in" and "try finally". (3) There is an unofficial, full blown "Ocaml on steroids" distribution which contains everybody's bells and whistles. I support (2). I do not support (1) because it will just lead to annoyances. There is a reason why programming languages have fixed syntax. The revised syntax is "official" and has never been widely adopted. Why should we then expect that an "unofficial" set of syntax extensions would be widely adopted? I certainly would not use any in source code that I intend to distribute. Option (3) sounds like an interesting experiment. Someone should try it without trying to first reach a concensus within the community. It should have a name that distinguishes it from official "pure Ocaml". It should be marketed correctly, for example as a development enviroment, or "even more than GODI", but NOT as an alternative to pure Ocaml. It does not matter if it is neither of these, I am talking about marketing. Best regards, Andrej