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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL 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 7D3CFBC0A for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:20:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kAUIKix2030324 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:20:45 +0100 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so3165478nfc for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:20:44 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=WessRlT2mt8TOtWtlcmY7BATMiHTyqy1FJwyVsJ57jTXSmTZPfGOxYv2Y7a9YQPqGn9WGdr9stz6dKlQO9Sp5BMARqhKtDoqMnOc35Ly6/fdHS13O4qsbOGtsY+t46NtpmEDxF1zV8qfK131DdwZhBSjNxuaP7Mv15Cp5UBhSLY= Received: by 10.82.142.9 with SMTP id p9mr877633bud.1164910844497; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.176.16 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:20:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:20:44 +0100 From: Tom To: skaller Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web Cc: "Philippe Wang" , caml-list@inria.fr, brogoff In-Reply-To: <1164853811.9646.2.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_353_15395413.1164910844230" References: <45688DAE.7010309@ccr.jussieu.fr> <456AAABE.5020405@irisa.fr> <456CA3B7.1020508@philippewang.info> <9d3ec8300611281433q5509ccby65937fd4384f5a25@mail.gmail.com> <456CD1E7.80908@philippewang.info> <456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info> <1164853811.9646.2.camel@rosella.wigram> X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 456F20FD.000 on discorde : j-chkmail score : XX : 0/20 2 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 456F20FD.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; o'reilly:01 sml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 sml:01 rossberg:01 val:01 datatype:01 camlp:01 rossberg:01 val:01 datatype:01 X-Attachments: cset="UTF-8" cset="UTF-8" ------=_Part_353_15395413.1164910844230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline > > > I wonder how far that could go? Is there anything in SML that > you can't do in Ocaml with similar enough syntax that Camlp4 > could cope with it? > For me, personally, the question is not whether it can be done, but whether I want it or not! I am used to OCaml and don't want to switch to the unfamiliar, somewhat strange syntax of SML. The webpage http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~rossberg/SMLvsOcaml.htmlgives a (seemingly) thorough comparision between SML and OCaml (both syntax and language features are compared). The following are only some of the things I would only hardly be able to cope with: characters written as #"J" instead of 'J', fn x => e instead of fun x -> e case of instead of match with different declarations for values and functions (val, fun, in OCaml only let) datatype instead of type, plus eqtypes strance multiple values definition These are only minor differences, but if one is accustumed to one taste, one would suffer when forcefully introduced to another one. By the way, there are also some strange syntax structures introduced by camlp4 that I don't like... - Tom ------=_Part_353_15395413.1164910844230 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

I wonder how far that could go? Is there anything in SML that
you can't do in Ocaml with similar enough syntax that Camlp4
could cope with it?

For me, personally, the question is not whether it can be done, but whether I want it or not!

I am used to OCaml and don't want to switch to the unfamiliar, somewhat strange syntax of SML. The webpage http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~rossberg/SMLvsOcaml.html gives a (seemingly) thorough comparision between SML and OCaml (both syntax and language features are compared). The following are only some of the things I would only hardly be able to cope with:

characters written as #"J" instead of 'J',
fn x => e instead of fun x -> e
case of instead of match with
different declarations for values and functions (val, fun, in OCaml only let)
datatype instead of type, plus eqtypes
strance multiple values definition

These are only minor differences, but if one is accustumed to one taste, one would suffer when forcefully introduced to another one.

By the way, there are also some strange syntax structures introduced by camlp4 that I don't like...

- Tom

------=_Part_353_15395413.1164910844230--