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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92528BC6C for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:13:00 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AswMAOeCnEfUnw6FeGdsb2JhbACCNo1lDQEKCiIHmVs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,257,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8425698" Received: from pih-relay06.plus.net ([212.159.14.133]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2008 22:13:00 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay06.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JJEoF-0000R6-9K for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:12:59 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:07:23 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> <891bd3390801270624h4df6cdadn9d5e888dae615280@mail.gmail.com> <1201460821.19472.31.camel@Blefuscu> In-Reply-To: <1201460821.19472.31.camel@Blefuscu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801272107.23900.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 904a707d6912654e284b54c2a1e938aa X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 stdlib:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 implemented:02 construct:02 binding:02 productive:04 problem:05 fork:05 standard:07 On Sunday 27 January 2008 19:07:01 David Teller wrote: > You are correct, I should have been more specific. The idea is to > discuss > * libraries > * Camlp4 extensions > * language features that may be implemented as a combination of > libraires and Camlp4 extensions > * actual code. Would it not be much easier and much more productive to simply fork the OCaml distribution and address these issues at source? You could then address many other issues like improving the stdlib, adding a "try..finally" construct to the language, adding features to help with the brittle binding problem and opening the compiler's internal representations to the outside world. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e