Browse thread
About the O'Reilly book on the web
[
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: | Philippe Wang <lists@p...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web |
brogoff a écrit : > That would be a more interesting comment if you gave some reasons > as to why you believe that. I prefer the Revised syntax, for reasons > of overall consistency and because it removes a few gotchas, but for > various nontechnical reasons (tiny user community, questions about the > future of CamlP4 and the level of support for it, etc.) would not > switch over. Maybe it's because I know the standard syntax quite well. Or maybe because there are some things that are too weird in the revised syntax, like lists stuff. Like that : OCaml Revised x::y::z::t [x::[y::[z::t]]] x::y::z::t [x; y; z :: t] => It's too weird for me. The reversed notation for types : I don't like it either. (maybe just because I'm not used to that) In declaration of a concrete type, brackets must enclose the constructor declarations: OCaml Revised type t = A of i | B;; type t = [ A of i | B ]; Why is it so much better to add brackets? To me they are useless... Do they really make things clearer for some people? Well, I am not going to say all I like and all I don't. Of course there things that are potentially "better", like parenthesis around tuples. But I prefer not having to put them systematically. There are good ideas in the revised syntax, but it doesn't fit my tastes 8-) -- Philippe Wang