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 PAA32604 for caml-red; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:23:05 +0200 (MET DST)
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 LAA27595 for <weis@pauillac.inria.fr>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:54:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from smtp2-cm.mail.eni.net (smtp2a-cm.mail.eni.net [216.133.226.135])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9I9sK114048;
	Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:54:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from checkerlap.d6.com ([216.233.204.162])
	by smtp2-cm.mail.eni.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17204;
	Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:54:19 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001018024350.033bb1d0@walt>
X-Sender: def6@walt
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:44:46 -0700
To: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d6.com>
Subject: Re: non-symbol infix functions
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
In-Reply-To: <200010180929.LAA27375@pauillac.inria.fr>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001017181959.033bed40@walt>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr


>But, no, you can ``do it internally'', if you wanted to write the
>corresponding Caml code. 

Right, I meant for an arbitrary identifier.

Anyway, is there a rationale for this?  Was it just not worth the effort, or did it lead to ambiguities or something?

Chris