From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA15907 for caml-red; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:55:52 +0200 (MET DST) 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 LAA08881 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:31:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.mimuw.edu.pl (pm187.warszawa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [213.76.108.187]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e8R9VTL15056 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:31:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from news@localhost) by mail.mimuw.edu.pl (PLD/8.9.3) id LAA01611 for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:29:14 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: qrnik.knm.org.pl: news set sender to qrczak@knm.org.pl (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) using -f From: qrczak@knm.org.pl (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) Subject: Re: Revised syntax question Date: 27 Sep 2000 09:29:11 GMT Organization: Klub Nieszkodliwych =?iso-8859-2?Q?Manjak=F3w?= Message-ID: References: <200009261500.e8QF0G520563@concorde.inria.fr> <20000927075012.C5396@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: qrnik.knm.org.pl 970046951 1609 127.0.0.1 (27 Sep 2000 09:29:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@qrnik.knm.org.pl NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Sep 2000 09:29:11 GMT User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux) To: caml-list@inria.fr Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Brian Rogoff pisze: > Do you still keep a "do" for loops in your syntax? One of my goals > was to unify the syntaxes for looping and sequencing a bit. I thought the primary goal was to make it look like Haskell :-) Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:50:12 +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre pisze: > (Explanation: when you write in OCaml syntax: > e1; e2; let x1 = f1 in e3; e4 > actually, this sequence has 3 (not 4) expressions: > e1; e2; (let x1 = f1 in e3; e4) > since the binding x1 = f1 runs up to e4; in my syntax you have to write: > do e1; e2; return let x1 = f1 in do e3; return e4 > and I recognize it is ugly.) Fortunately e3; e4 is not an expression in the revised syntax, so this syntax would be IMHO nice: do e1; e2; let x = f1; e3; return e4 -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak@knm.org.pl http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/ \__/ ^^ SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA QRCZAK