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 VAA29096; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:32:18 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA29018 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:32:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from bob.west.spy.net (mail.west.spy.net [66.149.231.226]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hBNKWFv11624 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:32:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (dustinti.west.spy.net [192.168.1.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bob.west.spy.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224A25B04; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:19:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20031223164721.GA9202@davidb.org> References: <1072152186.59938.30.camel@tylere> <20031223085259.GA2000@fistandantilus.takhisis.org> <20031223164721.GA9202@davidb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <58887938-3585-11D8-9A95-000393CB0F1E@spy.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: caml-list@inria.fr From: Dustin Sallings Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml syntax. Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:19:43 -0800 To: David Brown X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 camlp:01 stupid:01 cae:99 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:02 syntax:02 her:97 chunk:03 revised:03 revised:03 wrote:03 cleaner:04 fingerprint:04 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:47, David Brown wrote: > The revised syntax to ocaml attempts to provide an cleaner, more > consistent syntax for the language, and it does a fairly good job of > it. > However, I don't see very much code written in the revised syntax. > I've > thought about why, and come up with an interesting theory. Actually, for me, it's that I've been spending time learning the base ocaml stuff and I get this strange feeling that camlp4 is an unnecessary extra chunk of language I'd need to learn. From what I've been reading, it seems like I should probably get over that. It's certainly not because I favor inconsistencies. Like with most things, I'll probably eventually start playing with it and wonder why I was so stupid to deny myself this great enhancement. -- SPY My girlfriend asked me which one I like better. pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings | Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________ ------------------- 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