Richard Jones wrote:
I'm sure you know why, but because (a) it's a huge amount of work and
(b) the sort of people who can do the work already use emacs so they
don't need it.
Actually, as a regular Emacs hacker myself, I checked out .NET's F#
environment and I must confess that I was quite impressed. It is
actually really neat. Instead of the usual edit, M-x compile, M-x
next-error cycle, the code is compiled in the background creating
"squigglies" under code that has errors. Using this and the
Intelli-sense completion features is very nice and I wish we could have
the equivalent under Emacs. (Of course, though those features still
won't detract me from my everyday daily use of Emacs.) Perhaps some
OCaml/Emacs hackers could work together on a system where emacs and the
ocaml communicates better?
Thanks,
PKE.
--
Pål-Kristian Engstad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]),
Lead Graphics & Engine Programmer,
Naughty Dog, Inc., 1601 Cloverfield Blvd, 6000 North,
Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA. Ph.: (310) 633-9112.
"Most of us would do well to remember that there is a reason Carmack
is Carmack, and we are not Carmack.",
Jonathan Blow, 2/1/2006, GD Algo Mailing List
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
