Hi,

  As a newbie, I feeled puzzled by the fact that there's two 
syntaxes for ocaml. I understand camlp4 is really useful to
extend ocaml on a _project-basis_ but it's awkward that there
is two syntaxes for ocaml. It's pretty clear that the revised
syntax is a progress. Nevertheless, it'll stay in its current
confidential use as long as it's not the default syntax, aka the
standard syntax. Because the newbie will have a natural tendance
to use the "standard" syntax.
  Moreover as I said before it's puzzling to have two syntaxes widely
used. Which one use ? And if you use one, when you'll see the other
one you'll say : What do this code mean ? That's why all the ocaml
keywords are only avaible and used in english rather than alse
a french version, a deutsch version, etc. Clearly we need a compromise.
  As Daniel said before the INRIA team will not push forward another
syntax. So what about the process in which is involved Perl6 ? I mean 
all the talented people write RFC and let the users comment them in order
to reach a benefit for everybody ? That would be great and moreover
a "open" approach to the problem.

My 0.02 €

--
Christian Gillot <cgillot@gruposbd.com>
GNU/Linux developer
-------------------
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