I was thinking of Ada with /=, but I agree with others that this isn't that 
important. You could make the argument that <> is better than /= since it is 
symmetric. I'm not fond of != in classic OCaml for that reason and since 
the ! usually makes me think of dereferencing. 

Anyways, the "=" change is really the one I care about. 

I'll have to check my Ada 83 Rationale to see why Ichbiah and the Green 
Team chose /= instead of <>, since Ada is based on Pascal. There's a 
similar syntactic quirkiness about Ada as in OCaml, where constants 
are given values with ":=" instead of "is". IMO, of course ;-)

-- Brian

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, David Brown wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 
> > >     Another possible change along the same lines is having =/= or /= for 
> > > inequality, which happens to look a little more like the mathematical 
> > > symbol. 
> > 
> > Uhm ... I disagree here, changing an operator in favour of a more
> > diffused one is comfortable, adopting a new one from scratch just
> > because it look more like the mathematical symbol can be really
> > confusing ...
> 
> It isn't completely from scratch.  Ada uses /= for inequality.  They
> probably had the same motivation, to make it look like the mathematic
> symbol.
> 
> Dave Brown
> -------------------
> 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
> 

-------------------
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