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 (15:41)
From: Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlp4o problem (was: otags problem)

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Markus Mottl wrote:

> 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.

It has no chance to become the standard if nobody wants to use it...

There are very few users interested in the revised syntax. How much do
you estimate the chances that people will accept a major change of the

You want my opinion? 0%

If you have written an application of 50000 lines of OCaml on 60 files
in 5 directories, are you accepting that the new version of OCaml has
a very new syntax, very clean and very incompatible with the previous

And even if you want to convert to it, what is your reaction if the
new version of OCaml has a bug in a part very important for you?


Well, there is no need to impose a new clean standard syntax, because
there is Camlp4. If most of people use the revised or any-clean
syntax, it becomes a standard de facto.


I am ok for a definition of a new syntax. I propose the revised syntax
as a start of the discussion. I don't propose to start with the normal
syntax because it is too much difficult to parse with recursive
descent technology. I managed to do it but thanks to hacks.

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