English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] otags problem
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-02-04 (22:53)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax change (was: camlp4o problem)

>This will probably not happen: there is just not enough incentive to
>learn a new syntax which is unlikely to become widespread - because it
>is non-standard.

I agree with this.  I think it'll have to be a top-down decision or it won't happen for real.

I (7660 lines of caml and going up quickly in my project) would make a major syntax change if I thought it was an investment in getting things "right" for moving forward.  I'd like it to happen sooner rather than later, if it was going to happen.  I've been tempted to try the revised syntax, but I didn't want to start mixing multiple syntaxes in a single project, and I would rather use the "standard" (whichever it is, and no definition of "standard" offered or wanted) just to make life easier.

I think you rarely get a chance to change major things, and so you should take the opportunity before it's too late.  I would support such a change if the team wanted to do it.  I don't think they should do it lightly, obviously, but I also don't think they should be terrified of a change like this either.  Decide what's best for the future of caml, weighing user pain (but not overly strongly) and cleanliness benefit, and make a decision.


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