Browse thread
Associativity of new operators
-
Alessandro Baretta
- William D. Neumann
- Julien Signoles
- Eric Cooper
- David MENTRE
- Richard Jones
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | William D. Neumann <wneumann@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Associativity of new operators |
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> The above toplevel session shows that the associativity of newly defined
> operators depends on the name of the operator itself. Is there a general rule
> to determine the associativity of the operator?
I believe this is covered in section 6.7 of the manual.
William D. Neumann
---
"There's just so many extra children, we could just feed the
children to these tigers. We don't need them, we're not doing
anything with them.
Tigers are noble and sleek; children are loud and messy."
-- Neko Case
Life is unfair. Kill yourself or get over it.
-- Black Box Recorder