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 9C4D1BB9C for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k0KGHM6u000405 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:22 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA30602 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from ext.lri.fr (ext.lri.fr [129.175.15.4]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k0KGHLJU006561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:21 +0100 Received: from smtp.lri.fr (serveur3-5 [129.175.3.5]) by ext.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20783202520; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from pc9-159 (pc9-159 [129.175.9.159]) by smtp.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAABCED98; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:18 +0100 (CET) From: Julien Signoles X-X-Sender: signoles@pc9-159 To: Alessandro Baretta Cc: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Associativity of new operators In-Reply-To: <43D10AA1.8050102@barettadeit.com> Message-ID: References: <43D10AA1.8050102@barettadeit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lri.fr X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43D10D12.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43D10D11.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; signoles:01 signoles:01 lri:01 caml-list:01 toplevel:01 lri:01 defined:01 caml:02 depends:04 docs:05 inria:05 manual:06 manual:06 table:93 theory:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > The above toplevel session shows that the associativity of newly defined > operators depends on the name of the operator itself. Is there a general rule to > determine the associativity of the operator? Section 6.7 of the manual, there is a table giving the associativity of the operators (and other constructions): http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual015.html Hope this helps, Julien -- mailto:Julien.Signoles@lri.fr ; http://www.lri.fr/~signoles "In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different" (Larry McVoy)