From: Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:21:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021031102130.D16979@verdot.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54610CF4.15AD25CE.00958B05@netscape.net>; from artboreb@netscape.net on Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:49:48PM -0500
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:49:48PM -0500, Arturo Borquez wrote:
>
> I prefer the revised syntax despite extra verbosity because
> it overcomes some confusing situations of the official syntax.
> (if with or without else, { and begin, } and end, the match
> function ... among others).
It is exactly my position: more verbosity is a drawback, but the fact
that there is sometimes necessary in normal syntax to enclose statements
with parentheses is a bad property.
An example of that is the pretty print.
The pretty print in normal syntax is a difficulty, because of these
pending "else" and pending "vertical bar": we have sometimes to
enclose "if" and "match" statements with parentheses, sometimes not.
A solution could be to always print with parentheses, but the result
is ugly.
I found another solution by calling the pretty printing functions with
an extra parameter telling "what is printed after", and when I print a
"match" statement, if that parameter is "|", it means that this match
must be enclosed with parentheses "(..)" or "begin..end".
--
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-31 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-30 17:49 Arturo Borquez
2002-10-31 9:21 ` Daniel de Rauglaudre [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-25 19:02 brogoff
2002-10-25 19:25 ` Oleg
2002-10-26 9:27 ` Stefano Zacchiroli
2002-10-26 11:19 ` Daniel de Rauglaudre
2002-10-26 17:38 ` David Brown
2002-10-26 19:27 ` brogoff
2002-10-28 8:38 ` Kontra, Gergely
2002-10-28 9:28 ` Oleg
2002-10-28 9:41 ` Florian Douetteau
2002-10-28 10:04 ` Stefano Zacchiroli
2002-10-28 12:20 ` Daniel de Rauglaudre
2002-10-28 16:53 ` brogoff
2002-10-28 16:56 ` Alexander V.Voinov
2002-10-29 18:15 ` Gérard Huet
2002-10-29 18:47 ` Alexander V.Voinov
2002-10-29 20:53 ` Damien Doligez
2002-10-29 21:30 ` M E Leypold @ labnet
2002-10-29 21:42 ` brogoff
2002-10-29 11:30 ` Pierre Weis
2002-10-29 16:48 ` brogoff
2002-10-29 17:20 ` Alessandro Baretta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20021031102130.D16979@verdot.inria.fr \
--to=daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox