Browse thread
[Caml-list] petty complaints
[
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: | 2001-04-09 (16:02) |
From: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] petty complaints |
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christian Lindig wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:26:59PM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > > Another unrelated trifling question concerns the syntax of numerical > > literals. > > Now that the spring cleaning for OCaml's syntax (floats, labels, > constructors) is in full swing, here is my wish: Haskell allows to > use any identifier as a binary operator when it is placed in > backquotes: x `plus` y. These operators are often more readable than > the classic infix operator symbols. These terms have no associativity > and a low precedence, thus forcing to use parentheses. An > implementation would only affect the lexer and should not be too hard. > Would other people like this feature, too? I've expressed this wish here too. I wonder at this point though if the use of backquotes will be confusing to human readers due to the syntax of polymorphic variants. Anyways, the answer from me is a resounding yes. On the plus side for classic Caml, I have to admit that while beginners stumble over the lack of an end for 'let', it is something that the frequent Caml user really grows to love. As I said, I'm porting a bit of SML to OCaml and this is something I really like about Caml (though I do like their interCap naming convention a bit better than our under_scores :) -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr