From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CAFBC0A for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:39:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.3]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB10dNTg012285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:39:25 +0100 Received: (qmail 19665 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2006 00:12:40 -0000 Received: from shell3.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.4]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 1 Dec 2006 00:12:40 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:12:40 -0800 (PST) From: brogoff To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web In-Reply-To: <200611292120.16437.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Message-ID: References: <45688DAE.7010309@ccr.jussieu.fr> <456CD1E7.80908@philippewang.info> <200611292120.16437.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 456F79BB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; o'reilly:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 ocamldoc:01 ocamldebug:01 ocamllex:01 ocamlyacc:01 syntax:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 speakeasy:01 brian:05 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Wednesday 29 November 2006 17:25, brogoff wrote: > > questions about the future of CamlP4 > > I thought the upcoming, revamped camlp4 was one of the hotly anticipated new > features scheduled for OCaml 4? It's for OCaml 3.10, as mentioned, and while I look forward to it, the fact that it is still a second class tool (compare to ocamldoc, ocamldebug, or even ocamllex/ocamlyacc) causes me to view it a bit suspiciously. By "second class" I don't mean to impugn the quality of the tool here. OCaml is not mainstream, and I'm reluctant to make it even less so where I work by using an alternative syntax enabled by a second class tool. -- Brian