On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:20:53 +0100
Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> wrote:

> developers, as well as those users that voiced their opinions on this
> mailing list, were not favorable to this split, as it appeared (to
> them) to be a step backwards.  

Well, I think that choosing the way where ddr will stop working on
camlp4 (thus keeping camlp4 in its current state instead of allowing it
to progress [which is the real interest in the field of software
enginnering research]) is also a step backwards.

I don't think that it is a too huge price to pay if the "freedom" of ddr
is the price of the camlp4's progress... In those days, I have to manage
approximatively more than 600 pieces of software to keep my computer
doing what I want     
> Hope this clears up the uncertainty and doubts.

Well, not really but it doesn't really matter since I'm suspecting that
we are not totally informed (from both "sources" ;-) about all aspects
of the «crisis»... 

(sorry) I can't remember if the following way has been exposed on this
list :

Can we imagine a kind of camlp4 fork ?  That is, ddr freely working on
its own "camlp4+" and the OCaml maintaining the "current" camlp4 inside
the distribution ?  
Daniel, what do you think about this ??


Cheers

-- 
mailto:georges.mariano@inrets.fr     tel: (33) 03 20 43 84 06   
INRETS, 20 rue Élisée Reclus         fax: (33) 03 20 43 83 59   
BP 317 -- 59666 Villeneuve d'Ascq       
http://www3.inrets.fr/estas/mariano
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners