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
About the O'Reilly book on the web
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2006-11-30 (02:30)
From: skaller <skaller@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 19:10 +0100, Philippe Wang wrote:
> brogoff a écrit :
> > That would be a more interesting comment if you gave some reasons
> > as to why you believe that. I prefer the Revised syntax, for reasons
> > of overall consistency and because it removes a few gotchas, but for
> > various nontechnical reasons (tiny user community, questions about the
> > future of CamlP4 and the level of support for it, etc.) would not
> > switch over.
> Maybe it's because I know the standard syntax quite well.
> Or maybe because there are some things that are too weird in the revised 
> syntax, like lists stuff.

What might actually be interesting and useful is standard conforming
Standard MetaLanguage (SML) syntax, or a good subset of it.

I wonder how far that could go? Is there anything in SML that
you can't do in Ocaml with similar enough syntax that Camlp4
could cope with it?

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: