[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: non-symbol infix functions |
> >But, no, you can ``do it internally'', if you wanted to write the > >corresponding Caml code. > > Right, I meant for an arbitrary identifier. > > Anyway, is there a rationale for this? Was it just not worth the > effort, or did it lead to ambiguities or something? > > Chris Problem is that the parsing of the language becomes highly context dependant, since interpretation of expression depends on the infix declaration context. This is rather unfortunate when you want to have separate compilation. Now we may have decided to remove all the infix alphanumeric identifiers, but we failed to find good infix symbols for all the operations. Best regards, Pierre Weis INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://cristal.inria.fr/~weis/