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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1650BC69 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:54:57 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAMoIPEdCbwQZnmdsb2JhbACPAAEBAQEHBAYRGIEP X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,421,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="4532154" Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2007 17:54:56 +0100 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982CC483BE; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:54:56 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: grQU2XSoIQRRgwt8XvK8GLeRN832a8e25w2UBjoXUuB3 1195145696 Received: from [192.168.1.11] (AMontsouris-753-1-15-228.w90-2.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.2.199.228]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA83E215; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:54:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:54:54 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Jambon X-X-Sender: martin@martin.ec.wink.com To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Compiler feature - useful or not? In-Reply-To: <200711151443.11860.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Message-ID: References: <20071115105320.GA29693@snarc.org> <473C4E27.60506@mcmaster.ca> <200711151443.11860.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 compiler:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 trivial:01 2007,:98 48,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 jambon:01 jambon:01 construct:02 On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Thursday 15 November 2007 13:48, Jacques Carette wrote: >> Personally, I think the best situation would be if camlp4 were >> unnecessary. But there is a lot of PL research to be done before that's >> possible... > > How much more PL research do we need to tell us that OCaml is crying out for > a "try .. finally" construct? > >> - It splinters the language into dialects. > > Fork the OCaml distribution instead of using camlp4. > > There are now thousands of OCaml programmers dying for trivial additions like > this, As far as I know, nobody has died yet. > many of whom would contribute if they could and a single forked dialect > would improve in practical terms much faster than the current OCaml is. That's only a theory. You sound like OCaml is the worst language on the planet, while many people here think that it's the best. Adding gazillions of extensions to the core language could just kill it. I'm sure you know that. Back to work... Martin -- http://wink.com/profile/mjambon http://martin.jambon.free.fr