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: -- (:)
From: Sven LUTHER <luther@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:21:53AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Daniel, the one problem i have with separating camlp4 from ocaml, is
> > that, if i remember well, the standalone camlp4 needed access to the
> > ocaml sources to build.
> No: Camlp4 is really an independant program. Yes it uses some files of
> ocaml, but they are duplicated in the Camlp4 sources (directory
> ocaml_stuff).

Ok, but it seems to me that this was not so previously (i was requested
for a ocaml-source package at that time by the camlp4 maintainer, i

> Between parentheses, these copied sources are the OCaml syntax tree,
> which are not installed in the OCaml library. I had asked that they
> are installed, like are installed some ".h" files, but it has been
> refused. However, it would be useful, if people want to create another
> preprocessor or use the OCaml syntax tree.

If it ever becomes necessary to have them, i would much prefer that you
tell me which files so i can install them or something. Sure i have a
copy of the ocaml sources as the ocaml-source package, but it is an ugly

> > If we separate again, what will be the situation on this same topic ?
> > will you again depend on the ocaml source ? Is there not a cleaner
> > solution for this ?
> Programs often depend on versions of a compiler, for example with
> the associated library.

Well, yes, ok, that is no problem, the problem is if you need the
_sources_ of the compiler to build the program, as opposed to having the
correct version of the compiler available. And the associated libraries
are already compiled, not in source form.

This is what i was refering to when i was speaking of finding a cleaner
solution than depending on the sources.

> > And also i am curious, what is so difficult with continuing to release
> > camlp4 as part of ocaml, but have a separate CVS tree for developpment,
> > that you sync with ocaml from time to time (and probably before each new
> > release), in the same way as DRI for example maintains a separate
> > development tree from XFree86 ?
> I don't know the story of DRI and XFree86. The point is that I refuse
> to sync: I consider that the ocaml team is not ready for the

Why ?

> industrialization level, although it pretends, because, at this level,
> some "liberty of expression" should be more controlled. It is abnormal
> that some member of the team considers that he is free to tell the
> industrial contacts that the work of another member is "not serious".

I don't see how the internal problems of the ocaml team has to do with
the seriousness or the readiness for industrial purpose ? As long as you
don't export it to the outside that is.

> Can you imagine what happens if the second of Microsoft tells to a
> customer that Windows is "not serious"? The guy would be dismissed.

Sure, but he would have been right, would he not ?

> I shall return working inside the ocaml directory, if and only if the
> ocaml team behave as professionnals.


> Another example: I was very shocked, some time ago, that the icon of
> Caml Light was "Joe Camel". Very funny, for students, but serious at
> industialization level. When I said that, they laughed at me,
> telling that I have no sense of humour.

Beside the fact that Camel could have sued you for unlicensed use of the
icon, and that it may well be contrary to the french laws about
publicity for cigarets, i don't think that the icon used for ocaml has
bought anyone to smoke.


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