From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFF0BDCE for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:26:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.26]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j7OKPv0W002272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:26:00 +0200 Received: (qmail 7136 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2005 20:25:56 -0000 Received: from shell2.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.3]) (envelope-sender ) by mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 24 Aug 2005 20:25:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:25:56 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: Christophe Raffalli Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order In-Reply-To: <430CD307.8000802@univ-savoie.fr> Message-ID: 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> <430CD307.8000802@univ-savoie.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 430CD7D5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 christophe:01 raffalli:01 syntax:01 syntax:01 constructors:01 surprising:01 2005,:98 ...:98 wrote:01 constructor:01 constructor:01 functions:01 speakeasy:01 data:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > 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) The examples that bother me most are record constructors, where I want to read structured data from a file into a record. And of course :: (which is just sugar) too. If it were just functions, it would be less annoying, but left to right is less surprising. It's a fun topic to chat about, but if you were allowed one change in the language, surely this wouldn't be it? :-) -- Brian