From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA18164 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:17:58 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA16912 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:18:16 +0100 (MET)
Received: from arthur.u-strasbg.fr (boos@arthur.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.6.103]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27306 for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:18:14 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from boos@localhost) by arthur.u-strasbg.fr (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA12012; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:19:19 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:19:19 +0100
Message-Id: <199701141619.RAA12012@arthur.u-strasbg.fr>
From: Christian Boos <boos@arthur.u-strasbg.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Negative float consts
Sender: weis


	Hello caml-list,


I recently found the syntax of negative float consts to be annoying.
You have to write things like this:

	two_float_func 1.0 (-. 1.0) 

IMO, it is more pleasant to write instead:

	two_float_func 1.0 -1.0

so I tried the following change in the lexer:

  | '-'? ['0'-'9']+ '.' ['0'-'9']* (['e' 'E'] ['+' '-']? ['0'-'9']+)?
      { FLOAT (Lexing.lexeme lexbuf) }

... and everything worked well !  I think this could be an improvement in
the readability of numerical programs.

(an analog change may eventually be needed for int constants ?)


-- Christian