On Monday 06 October 2008 15:06:12 you wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Code is represented by the form:
> >
> > .< 1 + 2 >.
> >
> > This may be executed using:
> >
> > .! .< 1 + 2 >.
> >
> > Values may be injected into code using:
> >
> > .< 1 + .~x >.
>
> I'm definitely missing something here
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Friday 03 October 2008 16:09:40 Dario Teixeira wrote:
Hi,
I really wish that the basic features of metaocaml, namely
.< >., .~ and .! were included in OCaml proper. The many other
experimental features of metaocaml could stay 'experimental',
those are the 3 which
On Saturday 04 October 2008 20:04:16 Richard Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 08:41:35PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > I submitted the following trivial fix over a year ago:
> >
> > http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4338
>
> This makes the mistake of supplying a lump of code instead of
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 08:41:35PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> I submitted the following trivial fix over a year ago:
>
> http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4338
This makes the mistake of supplying a lump of code instead of a patch.
It's a very common mistake, so don't feel bad about it. I
On Saturday 04 October 2008 14:57:16 Richard Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 03:31:18PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > I asked if it would be worth doing so before I even attempted it and was
> > told that it would not be worth attempting by Pierre Weis. Xavier Leroy
> > told me that copyright
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 03:31:18PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> I asked if it would be worth doing so before I even attempted it and was told
> that it would not be worth attempting by Pierre Weis. Xavier Leroy told me
> that copyright issues in French law essentially prohibit contributions from
>
On Saturday 04 October 2008 09:23:46 Richard Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 03:03:04AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:49:08 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > Sorry if I'm being too frank, but I don't see the usefulness of your
> > > post. I would love to see basic
On Saturday 04 October 2008 10:03:58 David Teller wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 03:00 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > 1. Obvious applications are low-level compilers for regular expressions,
> > parsers and bytecodes but MetaOCaml imposes the limitations of OCaml
> > (e.g. slow char and int handling)
On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 03:17 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> If you want a race, forget Haskell and look at F# which already provides
> typed
> metaprogramming with quotations, unsafe high-performance metaprogramming via
> CIL and the two most valuable syntax extensions (try..finally and views) as
>
On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 03:00 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> 1. Obvious applications are low-level compilers for regular expressions,
> parsers and bytecodes but MetaOCaml imposes the limitations of OCaml (e.g.
> slow char and int handling) which makes it unsuitable for most such
> applications.
Oh,
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 03:03:04AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:49:08 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Sorry if I'm being too frank, but I don't see the usefulness of your
> > post. I would love to see basic meta-programming feature in vanilla
> > Caml, but the way to make
On Friday 03 October 2008 17:01:36 David Teller wrote:
> I strongly agree with that feature request. One reason is all the code
> which is currently in Camlp4 but actually deserves the MetaOCaml
> treatment.
Most Camlp4 code is macros providing syntax extensions to OCaml that would not
benefit fr
On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:49:08 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Sorry if I'm being too frank, but I don't see the usefulness of your
> post. I would love to see basic meta-programming feature in vanilla
> Caml, but the way to make it happen is for sure not lobbying / making
> noise. The way is pr
On Friday 03 October 2008 16:09:40 Dario Teixeira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I really wish that the basic features of metaocaml, namely
> > .< >., .~ and .! were included in OCaml proper. The many other
> > experimental features of metaocaml could stay 'experimental',
> > those are the 3 which are sorely
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 10:34:03AM -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:
> Please add your voice to the chorus!
No, please don't. It is pointless enough to have tons of AOL messages
in the bug log, we really don't want the same on list.
Sorry if I'm being too frank, but I don't see the usefulness of your
> I strongly agree with that feature request.
Me too!
--
Paolo
~
~
:wq
___
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.c
Gasp, lobbying on this list ? :)
I strongly agree with that feature request. One reason is all the code
which is currently in Camlp4 but actually deserves the MetaOCaml
treatment. The other reason is that I believe that the Haskell vs. OCaml
race matters.
Cheers,
David
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10
Hi,
> I really wish that the basic features of metaocaml, namely
> .< >., .~ and .! were included in OCaml proper. The many other
> experimental features of metaocaml could stay 'experimental',
> those are the 3 which are sorely needed.
To those of us not familiar with MetaOcaml, could you give
A number of you are already aware of the following feature request:
http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4608
whose text reads
===
I really wish that the basic features of metaocaml, namely .< >., .~ and .!
were included in OCaml proper. The many other experimental features o
19 matches
Mail list logo
