RE: [Caml-list] Newbie comment on constructor syntax

["Soegtrop, Michael" <michael.soegtrop@intel.com>]

Dear Hendrik,

> And of course, that C++ doesn't have first-class functions.  Or has that
> changed recently?

C++11 claims to be a functional language and supports anonymous functions and currying. But as you say: the syntax of types, especially function types, is rather messy in C/C++.

> In any case, the problem with OCaml's apparent typelessness isn't that you
> don't have to write the types, it's that when you see someone else's code
> you can't read the types.

I don't know how others handle this. I came to the conclusion that it might be a good compromise to write explicit types on interface functions and omit them on internal functions. But as newbie I can't tell how readable this is to others or to me in 5 years.

Best regards,

Michael
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928