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: 2006-12-01 (03:36)
From: skaller <skaller@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 19:20 +0100, Tom wrote:
>         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?
> For me, personally, the question is not whether it can be done, but
> whether I want it or not!

The point is to reuse existing SML code -- not write you
new code in SML, though it may be useful to do that
sometimes too.

For example, if you want high performance you might want
the option of using the whole program analyser Mlton
for the final product, but use Ocaml for development.

I actually have a vague interest in that. At least in part,
being able to use a *standardised* syntax, good or not,
may offer some advantages.

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