> Xavier Leroy wrote:
> - [...] ":" reads nicely, but I'm a bit bothered by having to type "(x : t)"
> for a type constraint rather than "(x: t)".  Backward compatibility
> with OLabl is an argument, but backward compatibility with OCaml, Caml
> Light, SML, Classic ML, etc, is a much stronger one!

I fully agree. For instance I found yesterday in the OCaml 2.99
(99/12/08) doc (manual004.html), two "Syntax error" messages due to
this weird lexical rule...


> Looking at the OCaml lexer, the following 1-character symbols are
> (mostly) up for grabs:
>         $       (user-definable infix symbol currently)
>         %       (ditto)
>         &       (currently deprecated synonymous for &&)
>         \       (never used so far)
>         ~       (user-definable prefix symbol currently)
> [...]
> Opinions?

They are all right for me.

Cheers,

-- 

Christian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Rinderknecht                     Phone +33 (0)1 60 76 44 43
Institut National des Télécommunications   Fax   +33 (0)1 60 76 47 11
Département Logiciels Réseaux (LOR)        WWW
9, Rue Charles Fourier, F-91011 Évry Cedex