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 TAA02489 for caml-red; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:22:19 +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 SAA05224 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:34:30 +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 e8PGYT521271
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:34:29 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost)
	by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id JAA22017
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Revised syntax question
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009250928000.5077-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

Hi,
    I have an issue with the Revised syntax (from OCaml P4, with URL 
http://caml.inria.fr/camlp4/manual/camlp4023.html). 

How about 

    do e1; e2; e3; done e4

and change while/for to be consistent with this and return a value 
in done?  

    while e1 
      do e2; 
    done e3

    for i = e1 to e2 do e3; done ()

This saves a keyword "return" and looks a bit more consistent, though
maybe a touch noisier when you don't return a value from a loop. Anyone 
using Revised have a different opinion?

-- Brian