Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-10-11 (11:34)
From: Kontra, Gergely <kgergely@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4
>I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short:
>  * Camlp4 is useful.

>Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a
>fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy
>for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-)

I agree, camlp4 IS useful. (Exploring the alternative syntax)
I just afraid of developing in ocaml, if there exists two version of the
syntax. Sorry to say, but I cannot say much clever about this issue, but
I think the main goal is to have ONE version of syntax, which is clean.
But I know many people used to the old syntax, so I really
don't know how to handle it. As a newbie to ocaml, I found, that the
alternative syntax helps us to write correct code (but to tell the truth
I don't agree with some of the decisions... Eg. it uses value, not val,
explaining ocaml syntax doesn't have abbreviated keywords. But it does
have! The fun keyword, which is not called function. Anyway, this is not
a bad thing, since SML use fun also, so I think one can have val, which
is exactly the same in SML.
Another thing, that
bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit silly mixture of some
shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done or { ... } would be a
good choice (or support both, this way bash and C programmers will be
happy ;))
Ok, I know, you'll say: "Then why don't you write your own syntax?"

Ooops, so I'd like to know what is the tendecy: will the alternative
syntax be a new standard, or users should use the old syntax, and the
alternative syntax supporting is their problem?

ps: If this was discussed, please tell me where can I read it.


+-[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+
|         Email:,          |
|  URL:    Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656     |
+-------"Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!"-------+
Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio:

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: