Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] F#
[
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: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] F# |
On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:41, Robert Fischer wrote: > > However, operator overloading (i.e. overloading symbols) makes numerical > > code so much easier to read that it is worth sacrificing some inference > > for it. > > Unless, of course, you like to know what it is you're actually doing. As overloads are statically resolved in F#, you just hover the mouse to find out which overload is being used. So you know immediately what the code is actually doing. > I highly suggest checking out the Programmer-to-Programmer book on C# and > their conversation about operator overloading. They do a nice job > documenting just why it's such a dangerous tool in the toolbox. Well, I've spent the past few months writing F# code full time and I can definitely say that this aspect of F# is better. Of course, you'll have to read F# for Scientists to find out why. ;-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists