From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id BAA29921; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:54:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA29873 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:54:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g96NspD10177; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:54:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kiefer.ai.univie.ac.at (markus@kiefer.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.157]) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id g96NspEI006725; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:54:51 +0200 Received: (from markus@localhost) by kiefer.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id g96Nsoqf006467; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:54:50 +0200 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 01:54:50 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4 Message-ID: <20021006235450.GB5700@kiefer.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel de Rauglaudre , caml-list@inria.fr References: <20021006205517.B19829@verdot.inria.fr> <200210061929.PAA01123@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <20021006220127.B20005@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021006220127.B20005@verdot.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, 06 Oct 2002, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote: > It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but > the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However > it was a good compromise. I want to make my contribution to this flamewar short: * Camlp4 is useful. * Camlp4 should be part of the main distribution, because a not insignificant number of people uses it, be it for streams or different syntax. * Development and stable versions are absolutely common in software development. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be corresponding branches in the CVS, which keeps good track of the differences. No need to separate Camlp4 from the rest of the project: just agree on release dates and that's it. * Concerning the point that somebody says "X is a waste of time". My PhD-supervisor thinks that OCaml is a waste of time. So what? I don't like Prolog... Otherwise, please resolve personal issues over a beer in a bar or in a fight outside, whichever you prefer. As long as all of you stay healthy for further development, OCaml-users will be happy... ;-) Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- 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