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 RAA25497; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:47 +0200 (MET DST) 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 RAA25478 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5MFajD06407 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:36:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id IAA21772; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Sven LUTHER cc: John Max Skaller , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Caml toplevel and readline In-Reply-To: <20010622165648.B24296@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote: > In the end the ledit option seems the more attractive, being written in ocaml > and all. I would love to have it included in the base ocaml tarball. I agree, but that would also mean having CamlP4 in the base ocaml tarball. That isn't a complaint, I'd be perfectly happy with CamlP4 in there. Keeping the size of that tarball down ceased being an issue with me since 2.99/3.0 or thereabouts, when the gzipped tarball became slightly bigger than a double density floppy. And besides, I like P4 and Revised. -- Brian ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr