English version
Accueil     Ŕ propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

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

Browse thread
If OCaml were a car
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-08-24 (02:55)
From: Nathaniel Gray <n8gray@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] If OCaml were a car
On 8/21/07, Luca de Alfaro <luca@dealfaro.org> wrote:
> The only thing about Ocaml I mind, is that it a bit like German is, in that
> all the verbs at the end come.  And there nothing wrong is, but it for some
> strange reading makes, and it strange is that this from France comes.
> I still somewhat puzzled am, at reading:
> let f x =
>   [humonguous definition 50 lines spanning]
> in List.iter f l
> because the only way I make sense of this can, is by first looking at where
> f used is, and only then reading its definition.
> I much rather write would:
> do List.iter f l
> where f x = [humonguous definition]

Given the prevalence of List.fold and friends, I think this (the order
of arguments) is the biggest obstacle to code comprehension in OCaml.
I've even gone so far as to create my own ReList (readable list)
  ReList.iter l
    (fun x -> [humongous definition] )

As others have mentioned, labels can help as well if that's an option
for you, but I find the label system to be a bit intrusive for
everyday usage.

> Maybe this problem with Ocamlp4 solvable is?

I think it already has been done once or twice with camlp4.  This and
try/finally are popular in camlp4 demos...


>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->