Re: "ocaml_beginners"::[] Learning camlp4

On May 21, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Vincent Aravantinos wrote:

> The idea is that there is no ambiguity in what you write,
> -> therefore more chances that what the compiler understand is what
>; you really meant,
> -> therefore more chances that "if it compiles it works";,
> -> therefore it is more safe.
>
> Don't you agree ?

Yes, but did someone ask for more hand-holding?

I normally have no problems with the compiler understanding what I
mean and so I use the old syntax.

--
http://wagerlabs.com/

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

.

--- In ocaml_beginners%40yahoogroups.com">ocaml_beginnersyahoogroups.com, Joel Reymont <joelr1...> wrote:
&gt;
>
> On May 21, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Vincent Aravantinos wrote:
&gt;
> > The idea is that there is no ambiguity in what you write,
&gt; > -> therefore more chances that what the compiler understand is what
>; > you really meant,
&gt; > -> therefore more chances that "if it compiles it works";,
> > -> therefore it is more safe.
&gt; >
>; > Don't you agree ?
>
> Yes, but did someone ask for more hand-holding?

That's what a C programmer would answer to someone presenting him strong
typing, strong-typing is pretty much a "hand-holding&quot; thing...

> I normally have no problems with the compiler understanding what I
> mean and so I use the old syntax.

Yep, me neither, at least that's the impression I have. Maybe we just got used
to those ambiguities ? Anyway I am now more open to the revised syntax, but
will stick to the original one for the moment.

By the way, the original question still has no answer (or I missed it :
Shall we learn the revised syntax if we want to learn camlp4 ? Especially with the new one ?

Thanks,
Vincent

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

.