From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <petchema@concept-micro.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1E1BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroFAMOap0hYvxoL/2dsb2JhbACBYrAKgVg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,223,1217800800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="28273836"
Received: from ns.graphicgalerie.com ([88.191.26.11])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Aug 2008 12:28:44 +0200
Received: from polo.concept-micro.com (ABordeaux-103-1-1-99.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.86.99])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by ns.graphicgalerie.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C23DE1C002
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:28:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:28:30 +0200
From: Pierre =?UTF-8?B?RXRjaGVtYcOvdMOp?= <petchema@concept-micro.com>
To: <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Value shadowing (tangent)
Message-ID: <20080817122830.46d2a6e1@polo.concept-micro.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BAD42D8D71E49F4BD1BB651ACBEC138@countertenor>
References: <9E2C98C8798A487DAE77F20A9DC4F1E8@countertenor>
	<7C6C7ADD-910D-4C62-92FF-E286F0817FA1@cs.berkeley.edu>
	<EF829D322A1E44658F238F9576578406@countertenor>
	<1C96BA4C-8E65-44AA-96CD-C1CA399635E2@cs.berkeley.edu>
	<20080813110546.GA22672@snarc.org>
	<20080816220258.51bb5a5c@polo.concept-micro.com>
	<7BAD42D8D71E49F4BD1BB651ACBEC138@countertenor>
Organization: Concept Micro 33 SARL
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
X-Face: "1<D_YW=(Z@$kl':M7Gci`gAa"U.$bCElfWd@{578%xR_9MHE`RMTfG%f.dMf^xIS("~Dw$
 sCx~,%u0+T^YTq]o
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0100,:01 'let':01 caml-list:01 pierre:02 pierre:02 latter:03 let:03 let:03 indentation:04 indentation:04 scope:04 scope:04 style:93 style:93 standard:07 

Le Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:07:10 +0100, "David Allsopp" <dra-news@metastack.com> a écrit :

> > On the other hand, the 'let' scope will end exactly at the same place as
> > the englobing scope. Since you can't close one without closing the
> > other, 
> 
> That's not true. 
> 
> let x =
>   let y =
>     let z = ()
>     in
>       ()
>   in
>     () (* z no longer in scope *)
> and a = ()
> in
>   (* y and z no longer in scope *)

Now you're using lets within the _definition_ part of previous lets,
not within their scope. Even in the other style, that code would
require indentation like this:

let x =
  let y =
    let z = () in
    () in
  ()
and
  a = () in
(* ... *)

> Personally, I prefer the latter but
> that's a matter of style/taste, not sense.

I'm saying that "standard" indentation style makes sense, not that your
indentation style doesn't. Beware of xor-mode thinking :)

Best regards,
Pierre.