* Simple idea for making a function infix
@ 2006-11-13 7:23 Keisuke Nakano
2006-11-13 14:31 ` [Caml-list] " Chris King
2006-11-13 16:19 ` Till Varoquaux
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Keisuke Nakano @ 2006-11-13 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
Hi all,
Haskell people sometimes complain about that OCaml cannot make an
arbitrary function infix. For example, they can write (3 `min` 4)
to get the result of (min 3 4) in Haskell. Can we satisfy them
without changing OCaml's syntax?
Here is a simple idea for making a function infix in OCaml.
I hope it will be useful for those who like Haskell's backquote
notation `function_name`.
The idea doesn't require any change of OCaml's syntax.
We use the following two infix operators.
let ( /* ) x y = y x
and ( */ ) x y = x y
Then we can make an infix operator /*f*/ for a binary function f.
For example, using binary functions 'min' and 'max', we can write
3 /*min*/ 4 + 6 /*max*/ 8
to get 11 as 'min 3 4 + max 5 8'. Note that the infix operator
( */ ) may conflict with Num.( */ ) if the Num module is loaded
and opened. You can use other definitions in a similar manner, though.
You have to take care of the precedence. For example,
3 /*min*/ 4 * 6 /*max*/ 8
will return 18 as 'max ((min 3 4) * 6) 8'. So we should write
(3 /*min*/ 4) * (6 /*max*/ 8)
to get 24 as 'min 3 4 * max 6 8'.
The original idea was introduced in my blog a few months ago
(written in Japanese, though). At that time, I used other definitions:
let ( <| ) x y = y x
and ( |> ) x y = x y
or
let ( @^ ) x y = y x
and ( ^@ ) x y z = x z y
where the definition of ( ^@ ) should be given in a different way
because of the precedence of infix operaters starting with '^' or '@'.
These operators perform a different behavior because of the precedences
of operators.
3 <|min|> 4 + 6 <|max|> 8 (* = max (min 3 (4 + 6)) 8 => 8 *)
3 @^min^@ 4 + 6 @^max^@ 8 (* = min 3 (max (4 + 6) 8) => 3 *)
So you have to write
(3 <|min|> 4) + (6 <|max|> 8)
(3 @^min^@ 4) + (6 @^max^@ 8)
to get 11 as min 3 4 + max 5 8'.
Sincerely,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keisuke Nakano
Department of Mathematical Informatics,
University of Tokyo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 7:23 Simple idea for making a function infix Keisuke Nakano
@ 2006-11-13 14:31 ` Chris King
2006-11-13 16:19 ` Till Varoquaux
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris King @ 2006-11-13 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keisuke Nakano; +Cc: caml-list
On 11/13/06, Keisuke Nakano <ksk@mist.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
> We use the following two infix operators.
>
> let ( /* ) x y = y x
> and ( */ ) x y = x y
>
> Then we can make an infix operator /*f*/ for a binary function f.
That's great, I've also wished that O'Caml had syntax like this. I
hope this makes it to the O'Caml FAQ page!
- Chris King
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 7:23 Simple idea for making a function infix Keisuke Nakano
2006-11-13 14:31 ` [Caml-list] " Chris King
@ 2006-11-13 16:19 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-13 17:45 ` Jean-Christophe Filliatre
2006-11-13 17:58 ` skaller
1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Till Varoquaux @ 2006-11-13 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keisuke Nakano; +Cc: caml-list
Hi,
I don't really understand the point of the */ operator i your
definition. It's fuy ecause I've cosiderig the same problem recetly ad
came dow to this approach ( I'm redefining(@)... oe c )
On 11/13/06, Keisuke Nakano <ksk@mist.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Haskell people sometimes complain about that OCaml cannot make an
> arbitrary function infix. For example, they can write (3 `min` 4)
> to get the result of (min 3 4) in Haskell. Can we satisfy them
> without changing OCaml's syntax?
>
> Here is a simple idea for making a function infix in OCaml.
> I hope it will be useful for those who like Haskell's backquote
> notation `function_name`.
> The idea doesn't require any change of OCaml's syntax.
>
> We use the following two infix operators.
>
> let ( /* ) x y = y x
> and ( */ ) x y = x y
>
> Then we can make an infix operator /*f*/ for a binary function f.
> For example, using binary functions 'min' and 'max', we can write
>
> 3 /*min*/ 4 + 6 /*max*/ 8
>
> to get 11 as 'min 3 4 + max 5 8'. Note that the infix operator
> ( */ ) may conflict with Num.( */ ) if the Num module is loaded
> and opened. You can use other definitions in a similar manner, though.
>
> You have to take care of the precedence. For example,
>
> 3 /*min*/ 4 * 6 /*max*/ 8
>
> will return 18 as 'max ((min 3 4) * 6) 8'. So we should write
>
> (3 /*min*/ 4) * (6 /*max*/ 8)
>
> to get 24 as 'min 3 4 * max 6 8'.
>
>
> The original idea was introduced in my blog a few months ago
> (written in Japanese, though). At that time, I used other definitions:
>
> let ( <| ) x y = y x
> and ( |> ) x y = x y
>
> or
>
> let ( @^ ) x y = y x
> and ( ^@ ) x y z = x z y
>
> where the definition of ( ^@ ) should be given in a different way
> because of the precedence of infix operaters starting with '^' or '@'.
> These operators perform a different behavior because of the precedences
> of operators.
>
> 3 <|min|> 4 + 6 <|max|> 8 (* = max (min 3 (4 + 6)) 8 => 8 *)
> 3 @^min^@ 4 + 6 @^max^@ 8 (* = min 3 (max (4 + 6) 8) => 3 *)
>
> So you have to write
>
> (3 <|min|> 4) + (6 <|max|> 8)
> (3 @^min^@ 4) + (6 @^max^@ 8)
>
> to get 11 as min 3 4 + max 5 8'.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keisuke Nakano
> Department of Mathematical Informatics,
> University of Tokyo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
Hi,
I don't really understand the point of (*/) in your solution (maybe
for aesthetic
reasons?). Actually, I tried something similar very recently (and
was talking about it a couple of minutes before reading your mail):
( * might interact badly with camlp4 *)
let ($) f a= a f;;
let plus a b= a+b;;
4 $plus 4;;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 16:19 ` Till Varoquaux
@ 2006-11-13 17:45 ` Jean-Christophe Filliatre
2006-11-13 17:58 ` skaller
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jean-Christophe Filliatre @ 2006-11-13 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Till Varoquaux; +Cc: Keisuke Nakano, caml-list
Till Varoquaux writes:
> I don't really understand the point of the */ operator i your
> definition.
I guess it is only aesthetic.
> > We use the following two infix operators.
> > let ( /* ) x y = y x
> >
> It's fuy ecause I've cosiderig the same problem recetly ad
> came dow to this approach ( I'm redefining(@)... oe c )
There is actually an instance of this infix operator in the ocaml
sources (in asmcomp/asmgen.ml for instance). It is used to compose the
various passes of the compiler.
--
Jean-Christophe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 16:19 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-13 17:45 ` Jean-Christophe Filliatre
@ 2006-11-13 17:58 ` skaller
2006-11-13 18:29 ` Till Varoquaux
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: skaller @ 2006-11-13 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Till Varoquaux; +Cc: Keisuke Nakano, caml-list
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 17:19 +0100, Till Varoquaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't really understand the point of the */ operator i your
> definition. It's fuy ecause I've cosiderig the same problem recetly ad
> came dow to this approach ( I'm redefining(@)... oe c )
> > let ( /* ) x y = y x
> > and ( */ ) x y = x y
The point is precedence: consider only /* then
x /* f y
means
x /* (f y)
whereas
x /* f */ y
means
(f x) y
Of course
x /* f */ y z
means
f x (y z)
but then
x + y z
also means
(+) x (y z)
Also you can write
x /* g h */ y
which means
(g h) x y
which is kind of cute, eg:
[] /* List.fold_left (fun x y -> y::x) */ [1;2;3]
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 17:58 ` skaller
@ 2006-11-13 18:29 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-13 20:31 ` Karl Zilles
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Till Varoquaux @ 2006-11-13 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
First of all, sorry for the garbage on top of my last mail:
my computer hates me
-to Jean Christophe: indeed, that's actually the composition function.....
-to skaller: Hum, I *should* have tested more thoroughly my "solution":
let ( /* ) x y = y x
and ( */ ) x y = x y
let sub = (-)
4 /*sub 5
(* is -1 *)
4 /*sub*/ 5
(* is 1 *)
Regards,
Till
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 18:29 ` Till Varoquaux
@ 2006-11-13 20:31 ` Karl Zilles
2006-11-13 21:06 ` Till Varoquaux
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Karl Zilles @ 2006-11-13 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Till Varoquaux; +Cc: caml-list
Till Varoquaux wrote:
> First of all, sorry for the garbage on top of my last mail:
> my computer hates me
>
> -to Jean Christophe: indeed, that's actually the composition function.....
> -to skaller: Hum, I *should* have tested more thoroughly my "solution":
>
> let ( /* ) x y = y x
> and ( */ ) x y = x y
>
> let sub = (-)
>
> 4 /*sub 5
> (* is -1 *)
> 4 /*sub*/ 5
> (* is 1 *)
You mean exactly the opposite, right?
# 4 /*sub 5
- : int = 1
# 4 /*sub*/ 5
- : int = -1
Pardon if I'm just not keeping up with the conversation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Simple idea for making a function infix
2006-11-13 20:31 ` Karl Zilles
@ 2006-11-13 21:06 ` Till Varoquaux
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Till Varoquaux @ 2006-11-13 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karl Zilles; +Cc: caml-list
My mistake...
Sorry, seems like I've been very absent minded today...
Till
On 11/13/06, Karl Zilles <zilles@1969web.com> wrote:
> Till Varoquaux wrote:
> > First of all, sorry for the garbage on top of my last mail:
> > my computer hates me
> >
> > -to Jean Christophe: indeed, that's actually the composition function.....
> > -to skaller: Hum, I *should* have tested more thoroughly my "solution":
> >
> > let ( /* ) x y = y x
> > and ( */ ) x y = x y
> >
> > let sub = (-)
> >
> > 4 /*sub 5
> > (* is -1 *)
> > 4 /*sub*/ 5
> > (* is 1 *)
>
> You mean exactly the opposite, right?
>
> # 4 /*sub 5
> - : int = 1
> # 4 /*sub*/ 5
> - : int = -1
>
> Pardon if I'm just not keeping up with the conversation.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-11-13 21:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-11-13 7:23 Simple idea for making a function infix Keisuke Nakano
2006-11-13 14:31 ` [Caml-list] " Chris King
2006-11-13 16:19 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-13 17:45 ` Jean-Christophe Filliatre
2006-11-13 17:58 ` skaller
2006-11-13 18:29 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-13 20:31 ` Karl Zilles
2006-11-13 21:06 ` Till Varoquaux
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox