English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
About the O'Reilly book on the web
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2006-11-30 (18:20)
From: Tom <tom.primozic@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web
> I wonder how far that could go? Is there anything in SML that
> you can't do in Ocaml with similar enough syntax that Camlp4
> could cope with it?

For me, personally, the question is not whether it can be done, but whether
I want it or not!

I am used to OCaml and don't want to switch to the unfamiliar, somewhat
strange syntax of SML. The webpage
a (seemingly) thorough comparision between SML and OCaml (both syntax
and language features are compared). The following are only some of the
things I would only hardly be able to cope with:

characters written as #"J" instead of 'J',
fn x => e instead of fun x -> e
case of instead of match with
different declarations for values and functions (val, fun, in OCaml only
datatype instead of type, plus eqtypes
strance multiple values definition

These are only minor differences, but if one is accustumed to one taste, one
would suffer when forcefully introduced to another one.

By the way, there are also some strange syntax structures introduced by
camlp4 that I don't like...

- Tom