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 QAA26324 for caml-red; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:58:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA27292 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:01:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e8SC1cP26907; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:01:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11462; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:01:38 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:01:38 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: Brian Rogoff Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Revised syntax question Message-ID: <20000928140138.C4677@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20000927075012.C5396@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: ; from bpr@best.com on Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:36:42PM -0700 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Hi, On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:36:42PM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > > since the binding x1 = f1 runs up to e4; in my syntax you have to write: > > do e1; e2; return let x1 = f1 in do e3; return e4 > > and I recognize it is ugly.) > > How many times did you bump into this coding, or is it mostly an abstract > problem? No, it is not abstract. I have often the case in my code. Sometimes, I turn around it, when it is equivalent, by writting: let x1 = f1 in do e1; e2; e3; return e4 but it is not really satisfactory. -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/