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 TAA10946; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:12:09 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA10604 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:12:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from iona.labri.fr (iona.labri.fr [147.210.8.143]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9TIC8508470 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:12:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by iona.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3977E58 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:12:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from amrita.labri.fr (amrita.labri.fr [147.210.8.242]) by iona.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04EE17D99 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:12:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:15:02 +0100 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Huet?= To: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20021028.085630.59491212.avv@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> Message-Id: <57FACEC6-EB6A-11D6-A87E-0003938819CE@inria.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Razor-id: e7803503872c4bf6b502b73ae8db77869bfbef92 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Le lundi 28 octobre 2002, =E0 05:56 PM, Alexander V.Voinov a =E9crit : > Hi All, > > From: "Kontra, Gergely" > Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:38:04 +0100 (CET) > >> I really dislikes the do { } notation. >> My suggestion is to use do end pairs, which is borrowed also from = ruby. >> And if we want more ruby-ish (ada-like?), the matching can be >> match a with >> | 0 -> >> | n -> >> end > > I second this. > > Alexander > Frankly, I do not think that design of a programming language (or any reasonably=20= complex scientific activity) can be seriously accomplished by exchanges through = a large mailing list using random criteria of taste and distaste. In other=20= words, there is no "motion" to second, we have no tradition of design by = voting. The revised syntax of Ocaml is certainly not the final satisfactory=20 solution, but it is a well thought out experiment in improving the=20 syntax of Ocaml along orthogonal principles. Its community may not be as=20= large as the wider community using the standard syntax, but it is a=20 community of users who appreciate stability, upward compatibility, and principled discussion. I personally believe that syntax, and notation in general, is important.=20= Important for guiding intuition consistently with the semantics, important for=20 teaching the language, important for avoiding mistakes such as case capture because=20= of poor bracketing. So it deserves a serious argumentation. Furthermore, it is=20= not just a matter of concrete syntax, it is also a matter of consistent tools for=20= the edition and maintenance of programs in a spirit of literate=20 programming. G=E9rard Huet ------------------- 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