From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712B8BDCE for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:05:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.cegetel.net (mf00.sitadelle.com [212.94.174.67]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j7OK5SGQ018227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:05:29 +0200 Received: from [192.168.144.2] (80-125-86-55.dti.cegetel.net [80.125.86.55]) by smtp.cegetel.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751CA1A4BC2; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:05:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <430CD307.8000802@univ-savoie.fr> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:05:27 +0200 From: Christophe Raffalli User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: brogoff Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order References: <43065B83.6050503@dravanet.hu> <254E6767-A097-455B-872B-483725D26744@inria.fr> <000401c5a84a$a2e79760$1866b811@Operational> <91631662-65C4-4FB7-96B1-B6C1CAF50B80@inria.fr> <430C86A7.6050408@univ-savoie.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 430CD309.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; christophe:01 raffalli:01 christophe:01 raffalli:01 univ-savoie:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 syntax:01 alas:01 constructors:01 sml:01 syntax:01 2005,:98 ...:98 wrote:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 brogoff a écrit : > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > >>If you really want left-to-right evaluation order in ocaml, use camlp4 >>to change the syntax with a postfix function application (with the >>argument to the left). >> >>That will be homogenous with type application ! >> >>:-) > > > Alas, it doesn't help with the evaluation of order of constructors, > which is where I'd find left-to-right most helpful. One of those places > where I think SML is better, even though I usually favor efficiency > over elegance. > Anyway, I always found that the application of constructor has a syntax to near the syntax of function application: f (x,y) and A (x,y) are both meaningfull ... I would prefer square bracket for constructor application, mandatory even for unary constructor (and maybe also constant constructor then you can lift the restriction about capital letter) > -- Brian >