Am Samstag, den 10.12.2011, 17:32 -0300 schrieb Andrei Formiga:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Protzenko
jonathan.protze...@gmail.com wrote:
= Improving the community =
I think the main point of the discussion is to improve the community. If
we really want to improve OCaml
On 12/11/2011 12:34 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
A summary to this lengthy mail:
(1) Why type-enriched Camlp4 is an unreasonable idea
(2) We should extract the typedtree; why it's hard
(3) A fictional narrative of the camlp4/camlp5 history
(4) Why you don't want to become Camlp4 maintainer
(5)
Am Samstag, den 10.12.2011, 22:12 +0100 schrieb ri...@happyleptic.org:
What I'd really like is a way to mix any version I want of the packages I
install, especially experimental versions for the packages I want to test or
contribute to.
I stopped using GODI some time ago because I wanted
And Xavier's mail suggests that camlp4 is a maintenance burden for the OCaml
team.
Why is it such a bad idea to drop camlp4 out of the distribution, and
just let camlp5 live?
First of all, I don't have a strong opinion here: I just voiced
doubt. My reasoning for going so goes along two lines
Am Sonntag, den 11.12.2011, 00:28 +0100 schrieb Jesper Louis Andersen:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 15:45, Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr wrote:
2- As pointed out already in this discussion, it's not on the Caml compiler
that community efforts are most needed. For example, the most
I agree would be a serious changes, and I was thinking even of experimenting
a bit with this kind of strictly typed meta programming. It's perfectly
viable, as I've seen some good examples in my life. (and Template
Haskell does it AFAIR).
I'm not familiar with Template Haskell at all, but I
Many people are still frustrated with the camlp4/p5 situation. IMHO, we
should give up on camlp4 inside the distribution, and only implement a
few of its features in the regular parser:
- Antiquotation syntax (i.e. expressions) because this makes it
very easy to incorporate foreign syntax
Gerd, you are summing up in a few paragraphs what I tried to say in a few pages.
There are other parts of Camlp4 that I would also welcome:
- the OCaml quotation parsers that reads quoted OCaml expression (and
patterns) and translate them to their ASTs (as an OCaml expression);
this makes
On 12/11/2011 12:34 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
the Coq
team which has user-defined notations using Camlp4 and, huh, I really
don't want to know the details
My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Coq uses
camlp{4,5} only as an extensible parser library in order to parse its
Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr writes:
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
The relevant bug report PR/5404, which includes a backward
compatible patch, is already waiting for a sign of life for 3 weeks
now (maybe wait another 4 years to get the port fixed).
More bile. What's
Le 11/12/2011 14:27, Alain Frisch a écrit :
My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Coq uses
camlp{4,5} only as an extensible parser library in order to parse its
own language (which can be extended with user-defined notations). In
particular, Coq does not use the following
On Dec 11, 2011, at 14:33 , Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The relevant bug report PR/5404, which includes a backward
compatible patch, is already waiting for a sign of life for 3 weeks
now (maybe wait another 4 years to get the port fixed).
More bile. What's so urgent about it? The next
Le dimanche 11 décembre 2011 à 12:19 +0100, Gabriel Scherer a écrit :
If we had no Camlp4, we should push for some of these things to be
integrated in the language.
A reasonable but solid mixfix syntax could replace pa_monad, the
##-syntax of pa_js, and some aspects of pa_lwt.
jsnew and list
13 matches
Mail list logo
