[
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: | 2007-03-08 (23:20) |
From: | Robert Fischer <RFischer@R...> |
Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] Operator overloading |
I didn't realize that existed. It's not so bad -- it lets me have my cake and Jon eat it, too. :D ~~ Robert. -----Original Message----- From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr]On Behalf Of Fernando Alegre Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:25 PM To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:40:42PM +0000, Jon Harrop wrote: > For me, operator overloading is about clarity. In the absence of operator > overloading, you cannot regain the lost clarity using modules and functors. I often use the poor man's local operator overloading already built into the core OCaml: let result = let (+) = Vector.add and ( * ) (x:int) (v:Vector.t) = Vector.scalarmul x v in 3 * a + 2 * b This makes overloading local and explicit, and at the same time makes expressions clear. I do not miss implicit overloading. Fernando _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs