From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C33BC6B for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:07:18 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoXAHlXNUfUnw6GYmdsb2JhbACCOYw/FQQGEBk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,398,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="4274546" Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net ([212.159.14.134]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2007 16:07:18 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1IqrvZ-00080R-Ji for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:07:17 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's formatting libraries Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:58:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <9d3ec8300711080617g1b023711o1a8f9aa50b7874@mail.gmail.com> <20071109180948.GA15291@yquem.inria.fr> <92C50802-AFEE-4CD4-9F47-FBC9BCABC7A1@erratique.ch> In-Reply-To: <92C50802-AFEE-4CD4-9F47-FBC9BCABC7A1@erratique.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711101458.04047.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 bunzli:01 caml's:01 danvy's:01 unparsing:01 scanf:01 doable:01 unparsing:01 ocaml:01 printf:01 frog:98 wrote:01 deprecated:01 incompatible:01 caml-list:01 On Saturday 10 November 2007 14:32, B=FCnzli Daniel wrote: > A question I have is why caml's formatting libraries were not > deprecated in favor of an implementation using Danvy's functional > unparsing [1]. This approach doesn't require an extension to the type > system and if I read correctly these results [2] it seems at least as > efficient as the current implementation. Scanf seems also doable [3]. =46unctional unparsing requires a lot more code, produces worse error messa= ges,=20 is much harder to learn, is incompatible with the excellent Format module,= =20 and the number of OCaml programs performance bound by these advanced printf= =20 constructs is negligible. I'd much rather see effort put into visualization and GUI tools rather than= =20 ASCII text tools... =2D-=20 Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e