RE: [Caml-list] destructive local opens

[David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>]

vrotaru.md@gmail.com wrote:
> After reading this thread, I'm starting to thinking about another option,
> namely: "local un-open", because I certainly dislike ambiguity.
>
> So, maybe, something like:
>
> Vec.( ^(3 * v) * vx + vy)
> 
> where anything in ^(... ) is not subject local open.

Surely at this level of ambiguity-disliking, what you really need is a way of module-qualifying an infix? i.e. some alternate notation which allows you to write:

3 * v <Vec.*> vx <Vec.+> vy

(my use of "<module-path.unbracketed-infix>" is entirely hypothetical - I haven't paused to consider if that would be grammatically feasible, but hopefully you can see the idea)

"local un-open" and yet another interpretation of a sequence of symbols starts to sound suspiciously like we should rename the language to PerlCaml! Would that ^(...) syntax be recursive, just like local open?


David