From: Philippe Wang <lists@philippewang.info>
To: brogoff <brogoff@speakeasy.net>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:10:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0611290916390.23837@shell2.speakeasy.net>
brogoff a écrit :
> That would be a more interesting comment if you gave some reasons
> as to why you believe that. I prefer the Revised syntax, for reasons
> of overall consistency and because it removes a few gotchas, but for
> various nontechnical reasons (tiny user community, questions about the
> future of CamlP4 and the level of support for it, etc.) would not
> switch over.
Maybe it's because I know the standard syntax quite well.
Or maybe because there are some things that are too weird in the revised
syntax, like lists stuff.
Like that :
OCaml Revised
x::y::z::t [x::[y::[z::t]]]
x::y::z::t [x; y; z :: t]
=> It's too weird for me.
The reversed notation for types : I don't like it either.
(maybe just because I'm not used to that)
In declaration of a concrete type, brackets must enclose the constructor
declarations:
OCaml Revised
type t = A of i | B;; type t = [ A of i | B ];
Why is it so much better to add brackets? To me they are useless...
Do they really make things clearer for some people?
Well, I am not going to say all I like and all I don't.
Of course there things that are potentially "better", like parenthesis
around tuples. But I prefer not having to put them systematically.
There are good ideas in the revised syntax, but it doesn't fit my tastes 8-)
--
Philippe Wang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-29 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-25 18:38 Francois Colonna
2006-11-27 9:07 ` [Caml-list] " Sebastien Ferre
2006-11-28 21:01 ` Philippe Wang
2006-11-28 22:33 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-28 22:47 ` Martin Jambon
2006-11-29 0:18 ` Philippe Wang
2006-11-29 1:48 ` Martin Jambon
2006-11-29 15:26 ` Philippe Wang
2006-11-29 17:52 ` Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS
2006-11-29 17:25 ` brogoff
2006-11-29 18:10 ` Philippe Wang [this message]
2006-11-30 2:30 ` skaller
2006-11-30 18:20 ` Tom
2006-12-01 3:21 ` skaller
2006-12-01 6:48 ` Tom
2006-11-29 21:20 ` Jon Harrop
2006-11-29 21:25 ` Till Varoquaux
2006-12-01 0:12 ` brogoff
2006-11-28 23:07 ` Philippe Wang
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=456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info \
--to=lists@philippewang.info \
--cc=brogoff@speakeasy.net \
--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