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 77BEEBC69 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:52:16 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkZAKLrO0fUnw7XYmdsb2JhbACCOow8FQQGEBk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,420,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="4525680" Received: from fhw-relay07.plus.net ([212.159.14.215]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2007 15:52:16 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by fhw-relay07.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Isg4l-0004G6-EJ for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:52:15 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Compiler feature - useful or not? Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:43:11 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20071115105320.GA29693@snarc.org> <473C4E27.60506@mcmaster.ca> In-Reply-To: <473C4E27.60506@mcmaster.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711151443.11860.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; compiler:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 trivial:01 48,:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 construct:02 dialects:03 jacques:03 fork:05 thousands:91 On Thursday 15 November 2007 13:48, Jacques Carette wrote: > Personally, I think the best situation would be if camlp4 were > unnecessary. But there is a lot of PL research to be done before that's > possible... How much more PL research do we need to tell us that OCaml is crying out for a "try .. finally" construct? > - It splinters the language into dialects. Fork the OCaml distribution instead of using camlp4. There are now thousands of OCaml programmers dying for trivial additions like this, many of whom would contribute if they could and a single forked dialect would improve in practical terms much faster than the current OCaml is. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e