From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA12498 for caml-red; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 19:12:54 +0200 (MET DST)
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 UAA26289 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:53:12 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e61IrBD29931
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:53:11 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost)
	by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id LAA22776;
	Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>
To: Julian Assange <proff@iq.org>
cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: How to cleanly encode "quasi-constants"?
In-Reply-To: <wxn1k2np7x.fsf@suburbia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007011146030.26893-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

On 1 Jul 2000, Julian Assange wrote:
> The revised syntax is cleaner, but drops so much syntactic sugar, that the 
> language becomes ugly due to its verbosity.

As usual, opinions like this are much more useful and interesting when 
butressed by concrete examples. What's the sugar you miss, infixes? 
You can use p4 to get those. Something else? 

-- Brian