From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA11035; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:36:14 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10799 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:36:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from grace.speakeasy.org (grace.speakeasy.org [216.254.0.2]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g9BGaC503392 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:36:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 25002 invoked by uid 36130); 11 Oct 2002 16:36:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Oct 2002 16:36:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:36:11 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff@speakeasy.net To: "caml-list@inria.fr" Subject: [Caml-list] Syntax In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Kontra, Gergely wrote: > Another thing, that > bothers me is the do { } syntax. It seems a bit silly mixture of some > shell and C syntax, I think either do ... done or { ... } would be a > good choice Actually, more like Haskell to me. Originally, the syntax was do e1; e2; e3; return e4 and while e1 do e2; e3; e4 done for v = e1 to e2 do e3; e4 done As noted in the tutorial, not using "done" would save a keyword. So that would argue for using {} or some other non-alphanum bracketing tokens, and saving "do" as well. A counterargument is that the keyword may make it more readable, as the imperative sections of the code stand out more, and that's probably what you want in an ML family language, which while, imperative, supports a functional programming style well. I think the "do {}" is fine, and better than both the OCaml syntax and the previous Revised one. I could be convinced that {} or the like is better, but only by a little if at all. > Ok, I know, you'll say: "Then why don't you write your own syntax?" No, I perfectly understand that there are people who aren't keen on OCaml syntax but would still prefer to be in a community of programmers using the same syntax. And, since Revised has such a relatively small community, that you may feel that you may influence it's development to be more to your liking. Feel free, argue for your choices. -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners