From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57F5BDCE for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j7NJgJUH001369 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:19 +0200 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 VAA18414 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kraid.nerim.net (smtp-102-tuesday.nerim.net [62.4.16.102]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j7NJgI0X001842 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:18 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.3] (planar.net0.nerim.net [213.41.168.102]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E8B40E25 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:17 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) In-Reply-To: <430B654F.4080908@mcmaster.ca> References: <4309F579.4020302@mcmaster.ca> <3C37507F-C2C9-4E75-AC82-0CF742D87A18@inria.fr> <430B654F.4080908@mcmaster.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <414149C6-9BEB-4D2E-9A08-8BA31DADE0A4@inria.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Damien Doligez Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Syntax vs Operators Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:18 +0200 To: caml users X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 430B7C1B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 430B7C1A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 syntax:01 overlooking:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 functors:01 2005,:98 wrote:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 jacques:01 caml:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Aug 23, 2005, at 20:05, Jacques Carette wrote: > Actually, the whole point of this question is that I want to > redefine/override them > - and I wanted to find out which I could not. I know I can > override + if I want, > I want to know about the ones like :: which have a pre-defined > meaning but can not > be overridden. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I think the ones in the "keywords" list are the ones that you cannot or should not override. > The point is to see how much of a DSL I can create in Ocaml, using > Ocaml syntax, > by using lots of Functors. Very much in the spirit of the Lua-ML > interpreter in > fact, except that I want to use Caml syntax rather than having to > parse a new > language. If it's a DSL that includes OCaml as a sublanguage, I think at some point you will have users who want to use the OCaml features that you are hiding. -- Damien