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 VAA13291 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:43:39 +0100 (MET)
Resent-Message-Id: <199911032043.VAA13291@pauillac.inria.fr>
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA19336 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:45:47 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from enst.enst.fr (enst.enst.fr [137.194.2.16])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA25747
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:45:46 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from email.enst.fr (muse.enst.fr [137.194.2.33])
	by enst.enst.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA21365
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:45:45 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from young.enst.fr (young.enst.fr [137.194.34.13])
	by email.enst.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24730
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:45:45 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from localhost (debourse@localhost)
	by young.enst.fr (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA11012
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:45:44 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:45:44 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Benoit de Boursetty <debourse@email.enst.fr>
Reply-To: Benoit.de-Boursetty@polytechnique.org
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Internationalizing the language
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9910291357110.7735-100000@young.enst.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9910300237320.10979-100000@young.enst.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr
Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:43:39 +0100
Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr

A quick comment on one my previous post, that somewhat moderates my
ardour:

> * The language of keywords should not change, otherwise it would
>   make international program exchanges difficult.
> 
> This remark is irrelevant: automatic translation is easy between different
> syntaxes of the same language. It's just another pretty printing of the
> abstract syntax tree.

I wasn't thinking that during such a translation, collisions are likely to
occur between identifiers and keywords (identifiers that aren't keywords
in the first language syntax become so in the second one). You run into
problems then. My apologies for having made such a peremptory statement.

BdB.