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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8CCBBC1 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:42:58 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AucBADZVEEhCbwQZjmdsb2JhbACRVAEBAQEJAwoHDwWbIA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,704,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="25454222" Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2008 18:42:58 +0200 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AA9102C21; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: esZAR7BZ29LTX7hteJMMaqao2xhaIvBYW2POUpOYDsB2 1209055376 Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ALyon-157-1-7-80.w90-28.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.28.182.80]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 389B12EF88; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:41:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Jambon X-X-Sender: martin@martin.ec.wink.com To: David Teller Cc: Caml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Standard syntax extensions ? In-Reply-To: <1209052182.6180.35.camel@Blefuscu> Message-ID: References: <1209052182.6180.35.camel@Blefuscu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 unneeded:01 dependencies:01 cdk:01 cdk:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 jambon:01 jambon:01 caml:02 thu:05 problem:05 extension:06 On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, David Teller wrote: > * which syntax extensions do you use so often that you consider they > should be part of the language ? None because it creates unneeded dependencies between unrelated libraries. The problem is that software packages can only grow or be replaced because of compatibility issues. What if a part of a package (such as one syntax extension among many) becomes unmaintainable? The whole package dies. I believe it's what happened to the Caml Development Kit (CDK). I would love to hear some opinions from the CDK folks. Martin