>> Hi all!
>> 
>> Is there a reason one couldn't directly write
>> 
>> let l = [1;2;3];;
>> 
>> l#length
>> 
>> I miss these OO-like stuff in the language.
>Jacques Garrigue wrote a libray which maps some standard modules
>in a OO way. There is no OO list yet, though, but there are already
>sets, hashtables, stacks, queues and more.
>Check it out:
>http://wwwfun.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/soft/olabl/classes/

Thanks. Will it be the part of the language anyway, or OO will stay just
an add-on? If it cost nothing (I think so, it does only cost in a little
compile time. Am I right?), I think it would be a nice feature. Anyway I
like the way Ruby deals with objects (and it has also nice libraries).

Gergo

+-[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+
|         Email: kgergely@mcl.hu,  kgergely@turul.eet.bme.hu          |
|  URL:   turul.eet.bme.hu/~kgergely    Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656     |
+-------"Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!"-------+
.
Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio: http://hu.php.net

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners