Browse thread
[Caml-list] syntax foo
[
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: | Markus Mottl <markus@o...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] syntax foo |
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Lauri Alanko wrote: > Note that the layout rule in Haskell is _optional_. You can always use > explicit braces and semicolons and forget about indentation. So at least > your point on code generation doesn't hold. Ok. > Personally, I find Haskell's syntax (with or without the layout rule) > infinitely more convenient than OCaml's. Anything that uses "end" to mark > the end of a block is hopelessly clumsy and old-fashioned. :) I agree that Haskell-code looks much nicer than OCaml-code. The question is whether anybody would want to write an advanced parser for OCaml... > The sorest lack in both the old and the revised syntax is the need for a > let*-form, ie. a sequence of bindings, each of which is in the scope of the > previous ones. I _so_ hate doing this: > > let foo = bar in > let baz = quux in > let fnord = fnarp in > ... Well, one doesn't have to indent each line, of course. It's still a bit painful to have all those "let"s and "in"s. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- 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