Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] syntaxes
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Pierre Weis <pierre.weis@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntaxes

> I've seen so far, that there are at least 2 version of syntax exists.
> My only question is: why has ocaml different syntax than standard ML at
> the places, where ocaml is not more efficient.
> Eg. it is the same as writing => and ->.
> Sometimes SML solution is shorter.
> Records in ocaml is not optimal. From a record creation, the type should
> be obvious, so labels can be reused in different type of records. And
> there is the let ... in ... end (Ada like) construct, which can be used
> to avoid ambiguity, (My opinion, that it should be used in try ... with
> ... end and match ... end constructs, but forget it, uniform syntax may
> be a more important point...) not talking about pattern matching in
> function heads...
> Gergo
> +-[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+
> |         Email:,          |
> |  URL:    Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656     |
> +-------"Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!"-------+
> .
> Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio:
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
> Bug reports: FAQ:
> Beginner's list:

Read the FAQ:

The answer to the question

 Why is the syntax of Caml different from SML's one ?

should be relevant to your concern.

Let me know if this is not clear enough for your taste.


Pierre Weis

INRIA, Projet Cristal,,

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: