2007/5/23, David Teller <David.Teller@ens-lyon.org>:
> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:03 +0200, Loup Vaillant wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2007, David Teller wrote:
> >
> > > * That's not OCaml-specific but there must be some construction better
[...]
> > What about map fold, filter, and the like? Sure, they are somewhat
[...]
>
> I was thinking about a fold specialised in integers. But with a "better"
> syntax and semantics than either fold (i.e. no anonymous functions) or
> for (i.e. no reliance on references). Of course, I don't have such a
> construction at hand.

It sounds like you need some kind of macro which can encapsulate a
chunk of code into an anonymous function like :

for_each i : my_list
begin
  i*2
end
(* map (fun i -> i*2) my_list *)

and :

accumulate acc = 0 in i : my_list
begin
  acc+i
end
(* fold (+) 0 my_list *)

Problem : works only on lists (or arrays, depending of your choice).
And a Haskell like syntax for creating lists would help. (something
like [0..10]). I think camlp4 can handle all that.

Another solution to your problem is to use a Lisp syntax, and write
the appropriate macros (and go explain what a macro is...). :)

> > > * Some students rely too much on references.
> >
> > If they are used to for and while loops, they will think more often in
> > terms of references (as I did). Then, we have the array, a collection
> > of references. Do you think your students could learn some purely
> > functional data structures instead? Should they?
>
> There is such a thing as relying *too much* on references.

Ah. Well, are they sometimes incapable of solving a problem in a pure
functional way? Is it just harder? By the way, for how long have they
been exposed to imperative languages before your course?

regards,
Loup