Browse thread
[Caml-list] otags problem
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Markus Mottl <markus@o...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem) |
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > In this case, if you want syntax extensions and quotations, you are > *obliged* to use the revised syntax: [snip] > Are you ok for this change? I am against, but if you convice me that > I am wrong, I can do it. Though semantics is usually considered the more interesting part of languages, what are the future plans of the OCaml-team with respect to syntax? Can you envision defining a new (even saner ;) syntax in a future release? There have been small (and sometimes larger) syntax changes all over the time, but how about a major change here? I haven't been using Daniel's revised syntax yet, but wouldn't mind if the team introduced this one or a similarly different syntax to clean up the language as long as it is still possible to reuse modules implemented in the old syntax (should be easy given camlp4 in the standard distribution). Otherwise, even if the revised syntax (or an even better one) could be considered superior, nobody will ever use it if it isn't the standard. Any suggestions for a flamewar on syntax? ;) Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr