Jonathan Roewen wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I see some pervasive functions are infix, and I'm wondering if there's
> any plan to support making any arbitrary infix functions?
> 
> For instance, the Int32 (etc) modules are horrible to use cause of the
> prefix functions. These are perfect candidates for being infix.

Not arbitrary, but there are some "free" symbols that can be defined (I
don't know exactly how many and what, but I guess it's on the manual or in
the lexer :) ), and all the infix operators can be redefined. Example of
redefining "+":

########
# module InfixInt32 = struct
    let (+) = Int32.add
  end;;
module InfixInt32 : sig val ( + ) : int32 -> int32 -> int32 end
# 3+3;;
- : int = 6
# open InfixInt32;;
# 3+3;;
This expression has type int but is here used with type int32
#######

example of defining "+*"

#######
# let (+*) = Int32.add;;
val ( +* ) : int32 -> int32 -> int32 = <fun>
# 30l +* 20l;;
- : int32 = 50l
#######

I don't know if there is a way to force inlining of "+*" though, but I
suppose that you could finally resort to defining your operators in camlp4

http://pauillac.inria.fr/caml/camlp4/manual/manual006.html

see section 5.3.1

Bye

Vincenzo

-- 
Please note that I do not read the e-mail address used in the from field but
I read vincenzo_ml at yahoo dot it
Attenzione: non leggo l'indirizzo di posta usato nel campo from, ma leggo
vincenzo_ml at yahoo dot it