Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web

[skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>]

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++: http://felix.sf.net