Siegfried Gonzi schrieb am Mittwoch, den 21. Mai 2003:
> This is one of the reasons why I do not get it that nobody annotates 
> types in OCaml. If I had  to deal with a Clean function I would not have 
> made the mistake of using split in a wrong manner, because:

But you can use type annotations in OCaml - it's optional! I suppose
that Clean, too, doesn't enforce explicit types for all functions,
but I am not sure.

> split:: String Char -> [String]
> split s c ....
> 
> but in OCaml:
> 
> split s c ...

You mean:

  let split s c = ...

But you can also write:

  let split (s : string) (c : char) : string list = ...

> I agree the compiler would rebel if I pass wrong types, however, this 
> does not increase readability as opposed to Clean.

It's really just a matter of practice: I never use type annotations,
because my functions usually have parameter names that speak for
themselves. Only library functions get an explicit interface, both for
abstraction and documentation - in a separate file.

Regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl          http://www.oefai.at/~markus          markus@oefai.at

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