Re: [Caml-list] ocaml considered dangerous

[Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>]

Right now (in the following weeks) the priority is to finish a
thorough review of the (quite large) proposed patch, and integrate it
in trunk.
After that, you will be welcome to experiment with implementing
propositional parameter and proposing it for integration. Assuming
maintainers are ready to take the feature back (which is not a given),
my intuition is that it would be doable, but you would have to be
careful to have an implementation that does not degrade performances
for formats that do not use the feature.

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com> wrote:
> Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> David Allsopp wrote:
>> > Does this new version fix positional specifiers?
>> No, it does not. It makes the printf codebase easier to work with (if you
>> know your GADTs),
>
> Shame - it's an absence I find regularly irritating!
>
>         Printf.printf "long-perfectly-readable-multi-line-format-string" id id id id date id id date date id :o)
>
>> but lately the tendency has rather been to hope for *less* complex stuff in formats, rather than more.
>
> Well, for me, the hope was that things that were supposed to have been there (in the docs) might be fixed! The comments closing PRs 3992, 4204, 4290 and 4321 all suggested that a rewrite would hope reintroduce positional specifiers. From the printf perspective, I thought the objective was to match all the implementable parts of ISO C's printf (i.e. skipping only the things which are not type-safe).
>
>
> David
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs