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 SAA07905; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:42:17 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA09440 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:42:17 +0100 (MET) 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 QAA06685 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:30:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from sj1-3-4-9.securesites.net (sj1-3-4-9.securesites.net [192.220.127.202]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g16FUrn08372 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:30:53 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 23712 invoked by uid 16863); 6 Feb 2002 15:30:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) ([192.220.65.223]) (envelope-sender ) by 192.220.65.223 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Feb 2002 15:30:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:30:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Brian Rogoff To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax foo In-Reply-To: <20020205212131.GA1707@marant.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-15] J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:48:06PM -0800, james woodyatt wrote: > > Here's why I don't want to see the Ocaml team make any changes to the > > syntax: I'm certain they have more important things they could be > > doing. Like, for example, support for dynamic loading of native code o= n > > Mac OS X. > > I agree with all what you said. The current syntax is the one that was > adopted in the very beginning of Caml. Its syntax is the one which > make Caml different from other languages and it has been adopted by > people all over the years. Changing it would make the 'OCaml touch' > go away. Wow, I thought I'd stop at one post, but I can't let this one go. Caml syntax is *not* why people like Caml. I'd go as far as to say that lots of people adopt it in spite of its flawed (though not awful, like Perl) syntax. To paraphrase American political soundbites, "It's the sematics, stupid!". (PS: No, I'm not calling you stupid.) > People who want a Haskell-like syntax will have to go for Haskell or The syntactic differences between Haskell and OCaml are insignificant beside the semantic ones. > So, please stop pestering OCaml authors with syntactic considerations, > I have no doubt that there are higher priority improvements. > (it's up to them to decide or not on this though). Priority is certainly subjective, but I agree with Gerard Huet who said that we're really a long way from being ready with regards to tools and documentation, and with Benjamin Pierce who says that a syntax change now would be detrimental to OCaml's growing popularity as it would make it harder on authors. Sophisticated OCamlists may adopt Revised syntax now, or as they need it. -- 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