Browse thread
[Caml-list] a reckless proposal
[
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: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] a reckless proposal |
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Miles Egan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 08:15:49AM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > > It also seems that you'd like to eliminate these false friends (good phrase, > > especially for a bilingual French-English mailing list!) by subsuming them > > into features that mainstream programmers know well. That would be a > > mistake, since you'd end up with a mainstream language. > > I certainly wouldn't generally characterize my intentions that way. I'm more > interested in re-evaluating gratuitous differences. At any rate, I agree that > the loss of pattern-matching more than outweighs the benefits in this case. > Ocaml is stylistically quite comfortably out of the mainstream in many ways and > I'm sure it will remain so. I think pattern matching is a compelling feature. I'd like to see extensions to OCaml's pattern matching, like the SMLish ability to to distinguish a partial and full record match (yeah I know backwards compatibility may be an issue). And views, and... > > > 90s). Ada packages correspond very closely to ML modules, and there are > > even crude approximations to functors and signatures in Ada 95 (generic > > formal package parameters in Ada parlance). > > It's not the combination of packaging and polymorphism in Ocaml that I think is > confusing. In fact, I think it's one of it's most compelling features. It's > the fact that compilation units are implicit top-level modules with special > properties. A few paragraphs in the documentation explaining top-level modules > and the relationship between source files and implicit top-level modules might > clarify this a bit better for new users. http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/htmlman/manual005.html section 4.5 explains it. Maybe a few more paragraphs showing how to use module types, functors, and top level modules in a smallish compiled program would help? > Perhaps some kind of "Ocaml for Java Programmers" FAQ might be useful? I don't use Java enough that it's the source of false friends. Are you volunteering? -- Brian ------------------- 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