From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8C6BC8B for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [192.54.42.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1DLgfZK013992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D800F2001B; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17466-02-23; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (kaiser.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC1C20010; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.54]) by mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A669C26E89; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix, from userid 3092) id 341773CBB; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C0B2D714; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:29 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Fischbacher To: Michael Walter Cc: Daniel Heck , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking In-Reply-To: <877e9a1705021312525337a907@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <877e9a17050206221653d14456@mail.gmail.com> <877e9a17050212145737cc30d6@mail.gmail.com> <200502131451.02231.edgin@slingshot.co.nz> <20050213112630.73930e19@hobbes> <877e9a1705021312525337a907@mail.gmail.com> X-BOFH: Daemons did it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at physik.uni-muenchen.de X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 420FC9D1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 o'caml:01 syntax:01 parser:01 syntax:01 notation:01 ocaml:01 cip:98 cip:98 lambda:01 lambda:01 arbitrary:01 faq:01 explicitly:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Walter wrote: > Your argument regarding Lisp and O'caml ignores the fact that > programming languages are to a large part about syntax - for obviously > valid reasons like accessability, maintainability, expressiveness, > etc. > > I feel I've mentioned that so many times it should be in some FAQ ;o) With a parser generator (take zebu, for example) and, say, SET-DISPATCH-MACRO-CHARACTER, I just as well can give you any syntax you want on top of lisp. But I think you understand if I don't post code that explicitly demonstrates how to do that now. So, syntax just as well is "nothing more than a library". Once the mechanics is there, I can easily place any arbitrary notation on top of that. If you want, I can make my pattern matching in lisp look exactly like ocaml pattern matching. -- regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)