From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EED57EEAF for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:08:08 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of carette@mcmaster.ca) identity=pra; client-ip=130.113.64.67; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="carette@mcmaster.ca"; x-sender="carette@mcmaster.ca"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of carette@mcmaster.ca) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=130.113.64.67; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="carette@mcmaster.ca"; x-sender="carette@mcmaster.ca"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@pinegw01.uts.mcmaster.ca) identity=helo; client-ip=130.113.64.67; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="carette@mcmaster.ca"; x-sender="postmaster@pinegw01.uts.mcmaster.ca"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsUAAKJ3AVGCcUBDmWdsb2JhbABEgzi7Jw4BAQEBAQgLCwcUJ4IeAQEFODYKARALDQsJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBQIBAYgWvi+QewOIYZMWIo1R X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,530,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="169539593" Received: from unknown (HELO pinegw01.uts.mcmaster.ca) ([130.113.64.67]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jan 2013 19:08:07 +0100 Received: from Gorash7.UTS.McMaster.CA (Gorash7.UTS.McMaster.CA [130.113.196.61]) by pinegw01.uts.mcmaster.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0OI6QYO029436; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:06:30 -0500 Received: from cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca (univmail.CIS.McMaster.CA [130.113.64.46]) by Gorash7.UTS.McMaster.CA (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r0OI6PW0023798; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:06:25 -0500 Received: from [99.235.253.243] (account carette@univmail.cis.mcmaster.ca HELO [192.168.2.105]) by cgpsrv2.cis.mcmaster.ca (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTPSA id 441756974; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:06:25 -0500 Message-ID: <51017820.2050201@mcmaster.ca> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:06:24 -0500 From: Jacques Carette User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Frisch CC: caml-list References: <510145A5.6030807@frisch.fr> <20130124161649.GB2290@securactive.lan> <51016AAB.8070403@frisch.fr> In-Reply-To: <51016AAB.8070403@frisch.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version-Mac: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.1.24.175717 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1400_1499 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FW_1LN_BOT_MSGID 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' X-Spam-Flag: NO Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Working Group: the future of syntax extensions in OCaml, after camlp4 On 13-01-24 12:08 PM, Alain Frisch wrote: > On 01/24/2013 05:16 PM, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote: >> Are we interrested here striclty in _pre_processing or is runtime code >> generation also on topic? > > Runtime code generation, and meta-programming a la MetaOCaml are > indeed quite a different story, and they are not specifically in the > scope of the working group. I can imagine that some outcomes of this > de-camlp4-ifcation might benefit to such projects, though. For > instance, a more liberal concrete syntax (with attributes/quotations) > might allow, say, MetaOCaml, to use directly the official parser, > thus avoiding problems related to the fact that it currently needs a > custom parser. For instance, I guess that camlp4 extensions cannot be > directly used by MetaOCaml users (except if someone decided to port > Camlp4 to MetaOCaml). Discussions related to these syntactic aspects > are very much welcome in the new mailing list. I was going to bring this up on the new mailing list, after waiting a bit for it to get populated. I am glad that you intend to keep metaocaml-style metaprogramming as 'a different story', as it really is exactly that. Note that the metocaml based on ocaml 3.09 did have a full camlp4 port (I did it), but it never worked for the 3.11 version (I tried and did not succeed). Anyways, I've joined the new mailing list, and will participate in such a discussion over there. Jacques