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 951C3BC75 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:42:49 +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 j1O9gnr3021825 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:42:49 +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 KAA01211 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:42:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-061-075.arcor-ip.net [145.254.61.75]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1O9gkXC021816 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:42:48 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4392EAF43D; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:47:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:47:48 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Camlp4 with traditional syntax (was: Camlp4 documentation) Message-ID: <20050224004748.GB461@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20050222102900.GA516@first.in-berlin.de> 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 421DA199.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 421DA197.001 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 wrote:01 bandel:01 wrote:01 imho:01 pointers:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 imho:01 ...:98 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 Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:01:05PM -0800, Martin Jambon wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Oliver Bandel wrote: > > [...] > > 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. > > I started writing a tutorial this weekend. There are many things to say, > and there are also many things that I ignore... > > > 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. > > I will try to talk about just what I know, not give too many technical > details but rather pointers to the relevant sources of documentation or > tips on "What should do in that case?". > > The goal is just to avoid anyone being stuck more than 2 minutes while > trying to extend the syntax of OCaml. Sounds good. :) Hint: "Just as a picture is worth a thousands words, so is a properly chosen program example." (Stephen G. Kochan, Programming in Objective C, page 2) > > > 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... > > OK, I will try my best. :) Ciao, Oliver