Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] Learning camlp4

--- In ocaml_beginners%40yahoogroups.com">ocaml_beginnersyahoogroups.com, dmitry grebeniuk <gds-mlsts...> wrote:
&gt;
> Shalom, Richard.
>
> >> RJ> The good thing is that apparently they ditched the revised
> >> RJ> syntax.
> >> Where this can be seen from?
&gt; RJ> Looking at the release notes for OCaml 3.10 (released today!)
> RJ> it seems like this was more of a wish on my part ...
>
> Why don't you like revised syntax? Just because you have
>; wrote too many lines of code in original syntax and don't
&gt; want to learn another syntax?

Personaly, this is completely the case and it is a very good reason. Learning camlp4
requires two learning at once : revised syntax AND camlp4 itself. When I tried to learn it I
found it so awful that I didn't even go beyond revised syntax.

I am hoping more accessibility from the new camlp4 (even though revised syntax seems to
remain...) and I understood that this problem of accessibility was one of the main reasons
to refund camlp4.

By the way, looking at the main list I understood that camlp4r was for using the revised
syntax and camlp4o for using the original one, am I wrong ?

Thanks all,
Vincent

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Shalom, vincent.aravantinos.

>&gt; Why don't you like revised syntax? Just because you have
>> wrote too many lines of code in original syntax and don't
>> want to learn another syntax?

va> Personaly, this is completely the case and it is a
va> very good reason.

Is such inertia is so good? Revised syntax has many
advantages over original one, and when I see people keep
using original syntax and dislike revised syntax, it reminds
me how imperative/OO programmers hold their C/C++/Java and
can't even think of more appealing alternatives.

va> Learning camlp4 requires two learning at once : revised
va> syntax AND camlp4 itself. When I tried to learn it I
va> found it so awful that I didn't even go beyond revised
va> syntax.

I learned revised syntax when tried to learn camlp4.
I wanted to use camlp4 for fixing some unsafe issues in
original syntax, but I've found that revised syntax already
fixed these issues.

va> By the way, looking at the main list I understood that
va&gt; camlp4r was for using the revised syntax and camlp4o for
va&gt; using the original one, am I wrong ?

You are right. I use "-pp camlp4r&quot; for compiling sources
written in revised syntax.

--
WBR,
dmitry mailto: gds-mlsts%40moldavcable.com">gds-mlstsmoldavcable.com

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.