From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF45BC75 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:19:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1MNJ5Ub032753 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:19:05 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA05835 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:19:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-062-172.arcor-ip.net [145.254.62.172]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1MNJ2Z1032737 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:19:03 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 11FD9AECB8; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:29:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:29:00 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 with traditional syntax (was: Camlp4 documentation) Message-ID: <20050222102900.GA516@first.in-berlin.de> References: <4215A18C.7040603@barettadeit.com> <4215AD36.1070303@cs.unisa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 421BBDE9.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 421BBDE6.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 syntax:01 hendrik:01 tews:01 wrote:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 expander:01 ocaml:01 rauglaudre:01 parsing:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 05:20:34PM +0100, Hendrik Tews wrote: > Alex Cowie writes: > > For me, the use of revised syntax has been a disincentive to using > Camlp4 metaprogramming. I have always wondered whether a traditional > syntax version of Camlp4 was technically feasible. Any comments? > > I believe it is possible. You can parse traditional ocaml (as > opposed to the revised syntax) with camlp4, so it should be > possible to write a quotation expander using traditional ocaml. I > remember Daniel de Rauglaudre complaint a few times about the > difficulty of parsing ocaml. So a quotation expander using > traditional ocaml might have dark corners which do not look as > elegant as pa_macro.ml. [...] Because I don't know about what you all are talking here, I hope that the intended Camlp4-Tutorial will explain such things in more detail. Not another "we know nearly all, and explain some nifty details, that you also can see, when looking into the sources and study them some months/years" documentation, please... :-> So, if the indended doc on Camlp4 would explain in detail what it is good for, what it provides and how to use it, I (and IMHO many others) would gain a lot of such a documentation/tutorial. Explaining the details to pwople who already knew the most stuff, IMHO is not really needed. This can be done in discussions on the list (or when people know the tools, they really can look into the sources, because they know something about what they are intended to do). Hoping for a good intruductional tutorial... Regards, Oliver