On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:47, David Brown wrote:

> The revised syntax to ocaml attempts to provide an cleaner, more
> consistent syntax for the language, and it does a fairly good job of 
> it.
> However, I don't see very much code written in the revised syntax.  
> I've
> thought about why, and come up with an interesting theory.

	Actually, for me, it's that I've been spending time learning the base 
ocaml stuff and I get this strange feeling that camlp4 is an 
unnecessary extra chunk of language I'd need to learn.  From what I've 
been reading, it seems like I should probably get over that.  It's 
certainly not because I favor inconsistencies.

	Like with most things, I'll probably eventually start playing with it 
and wonder why I was so stupid to deny myself this great enhancement.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________

-------------------
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