Original bug ID: 1631
Reporter: administrator
Status: closed
Resolution: fixed
Priority: normal
Severity: minor
Category: ~DO NOT USE (was: OCaml general)

Bug description

The precedence chart at
http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/htmlman/manual015.html says that "=" binds
more tightly than "not" in the same sense that "*" binds more tightly
than "+". The implementation disagrees:

not 3 = 4;;

Characters 4-5:
not 3 = 4;;
^
This expression has type int but is here used with type bool

I like the documented behavior better than the implemented behavior.
I think this would be a compatible change, except in the presence of
perverse redefinitions of not:

let not x = true;;

val not : 'a -> bool =

not true = false;;

• : bool = false

(not true) = false;;

• : bool = false

not (true = false);;

• : bool = true

Changing the implementation to be consistent with the documentation
would be almost compatible because if "(not x) = y" typechecks and not
means boolean negation, then "(not x) = y" is the same as
"not (x = y)".

--
Tim Freeman tim@fungible.com
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
GPG public key fingerprint ECDF 46F8 3B80 BB9E 575D 7180 76DF FE00 34B1 5C78