John Max Skaller wrote:
> 
> "Krishnaswami, Neel" wrote:
> 
> > Permit me to disagree. I find nearly all of OCaml's features highly
> > useful and orthogonal, and I am only working on medium size projects.
> 
> I don't find that is entirely true.
> First, there is quite a bit of sugar, such as fun/function/match,
> if then else vs. matching.
...
> I'm NOT complaining, just disagreeing.
> In my current project, I've been sticking to the basic
> feature set. But I'm stronly tempted to switch to polymorphic
> variants, because they'd provide much better typing for
> my application. ....

And in general, redundancy is certainly not an ontological evil when it
is properly structured. Otherwise we wouldn't make any use of poetry.

Alexander
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr