0004714: please add List.cons

(0004837)
dbuenzli (reporter)
2009-02-12 01:38

I also needed this function really more than once. Daniel

(0004856)
doligez (manager)
2009-03-16 15:18

First, :: is a constructor and in general in OCaml, you cannot use a constructor name as a shorthand for one the corresponding construction functions.
Second, :: only looks special because it is an infix symbol, but like any other infix symbol, if you enclose it in parentheses it is parsed as a prefix symbol.

For example: let x = (::) (1, []);;

(0004859)
dbuenzli (reporter)
2009-03-20 11:34

Yes but what we need is to use as a function and you cannot do that. See the following toplevel session :

Objective Caml version 3.11.0

# ( < );;
- : 'a -> 'a -> bool = <fun>
# ( :: );;
Error: Syntax error
# (::);;
Error: Syntax error

Thus the need for List.cons e.g. to pass to folding functions.

Best,

Daniel

(0004860)
doligez (manager)
2009-03-20 14:59

You cannot do that for any constructor. Why is there a particular need for :: ?
Since the function definition is only a few characters, it's not clear that we'll
want to "pollute" the stdlib namespace in this case. We'll have to argue it
between the OCaml developers to make a decision.

(0004861)
dbuenzli (reporter)
2009-03-20 17:57

While it is at first suprising that (::) cannot be used as a function as the other operators allow, I don't really care about this. But having List.cons instead of (fun a b -> a :: b) could be nice and more readable in certain cases; I know I missed it a few times.

OTOH, for (left) folds List.cons wouldn't be in the right order anyway.

Best,

Daniel

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2009-02-11 20:08	ecc	New Issue
2009-02-12 01:38	dbuenzli	Note Added: 0004837
2009-03-16 15:18	doligez	Note Added: 0004856
2009-03-16 15:18	doligez	Status	new => acknowledged
2009-03-20 11:34	dbuenzli	Note Added: 0004859
2009-03-20 14:59	doligez	Note Added: 0004860
2009-03-20 17:57	dbuenzli	Note Added: 0004861

Notes
(0004837) dbuenzli (reporter) 2009-02-12 01:38	I also needed this function really more than once. Daniel

(0004856) doligez (manager) 2009-03-16 15:18	First, :: is a constructor and in general in OCaml, you cannot use a constructor name as a shorthand for one the corresponding construction functions. Second, :: only looks special because it is an infix symbol, but like any other infix symbol, if you enclose it in parentheses it is parsed as a prefix symbol. For example: let x = (::) (1, []);;

(0004859) dbuenzli (reporter) 2009-03-20 11:34	Yes but what we need is to use as a function and you cannot do that. See the following toplevel session : Objective Caml version 3.11.0 # ( < );; - : 'a -> 'a -> bool = <fun> # ( :: );; Error: Syntax error # (::);; Error: Syntax error Thus the need for List.cons e.g. to pass to folding functions. Best, Daniel

(0004860) doligez (manager) 2009-03-20 14:59	You cannot do that for any constructor. Why is there a particular need for :: ? Since the function definition is only a few characters, it's not clear that we'll want to "pollute" the stdlib namespace in this case. We'll have to argue it between the OCaml developers to make a decision.

(0004861) dbuenzli (reporter) 2009-03-20 17:57	While it is at first suprising that (::) cannot be used as a function as the other operators allow, I don't really care about this. But having List.cons instead of (fun a b -> a :: b) could be nice and more readable in certain cases; I know I missed it a few times. OTOH, for (left) folds List.cons wouldn't be in the right order anyway. Best, Daniel

Relationships