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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949F3BC57 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 12:02:05 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,303,1272837600"; d="scan'208";a="51231510" Received: from yubaba.inria.fr ([138.96.196.104]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 May 2010 12:02:05 +0200 References: <4BFAAB04.40906@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Sam Steingold , tuareg-mode@googlegroups.com, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr From: Tom Hutchinson Subject: Re: [Caml-list] new emacs tuareg mode release Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:02:05 +0200 To: blue storm X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Spam: no; 0.00; emacs:01 tuareg:01 tuareg:01 bindings:01 c-c:01 emacs:01 ocaml:01 caml-mode:01 caml-mode:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 hutchinson:98 hutchinson:98 storm:98 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. I noticed that key bindings are different and formatting is handled a = little differently. I have never seen a good comparison between the two = though. Or why tuareg-mode exists at all (instead of improving caml = mode). Another thing is that in the tuareg mode documentation, there is no = mention that you need to install files from caml mode. It seems like C-c = C-t (type throwback) only works after installing caml-types.el from caml = mode. What other files from caml mode need to be installed? I'm glad to see ocamlspot.el is included now. Thanks Tom On May 24, 2010, at 10:34 PM, blue storm wrote: > I have long used the emacs tuareg mode (simply because when I asked > advice someone told me that it was better than the standard caml > mode), and have recently wondered if that choice was motivated by > rational reasons. When I looked at it, I discovered that the original > caml mode has overall the same set of features (with some of them > coming earlier due to it being maintained by the OCaml team), was > reasonably well documented and was split in multiple source files > instead of one monolithic .el for tuareg-mode. I switched to the > standard caml-mode. The indentation, coloring and shorctuts are a bit > different, but otherwise I don't see what motivated the better tuareg > reputation. >=20 > Are you planning to add new features that would make tuareg decisively > better ? Have I missed some existing killer feature ? Why did you > choose to maintain the tuareg mode instead of collaborating with the > caml-mode upstream ? >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs