On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > In OCAML and other ML dialects I've used, you say:
> > 
> >    let x: int ref = ref 3
> > 
> > Is there any reason that type functions like the first "ref" are
> > postfix, unlike function application like the second "ref" that is
> > prefix?
> 
> I think it's mostly historical: the original LCF ML used the postfix
> syntax, and this syntax was kept in SML as well as in Caml.

Is it not because in the type notation, int ref is similar to int list,
while in the function application, ref 3 is similar to a constructor
application like Some 3 for example ?

Or are you saying that even this kind of notations come from the
original LCF ML ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
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