The underlying question is how to make ML mainstream which is what the
Am I the only one to be very, very, very, tired of this question ?
There's an obvious thing missing in the list of what has been tried.
Well-done and maintained libraries you can use for about any
programming task you have
On 01/04/2012 08:30 AM, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:
I think the biggest thing the community can do to improve OCaml is
not to tweak around with language design. It's to improve the
library packaging situation.
Then just do it.
I have, and the result is odb[1]. It
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 07:18, Yaron Minsky ymin...@janestreet.com wrote:
I think the biggest thing the community can do to improve OCaml is not to
tweak around with language design. It's to improve the library packaging
situation. Oasis seems to be the effort in this direction that has the
On 2012-01-04, at 14:30, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:
Mmm... I didn't request or even suggest a syntax change. I only asked what
potential issues it could create.
Here is one: as far as I can tell, it cannot be parsed by an LALR(1) parser.
-- Damien
--
Caml-list mailing list.
On 4 January 2012 13:18, Yaron Minsky ymin...@janestreet.com wrote:
I think the biggest thing the community can do to improve OCaml is not to
tweak around with language design. It's to improve the library packaging
situation. Oasis seems to be the effort in this direction that has the most
On 3 janv. 2012, at 19:43, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:
- equational style 'let f x y = x + y' : forbid
This seems a bit extreme.
Alan
--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
Beginner's list:
Hi,
Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons dofp.oc...@gmail.com writes:
List,
I was wondering if there was any obstruction to the removal of the
let keyword in a syntax for coreML.
My reasoning is that because everytime there is a let there is also
an = sign, we could completely remove the
