Browse thread
Which syntax to teach ?
-
David Teller
- Loup Vaillant
-
Peng Zang
- Julien Moutinho
- Andrej Bauer
- Nathaniel Gray
- Jon Harrop
[
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: | Julien Moutinho <julien.moutinho@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Which syntax to teach ? |
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:24:39AM -0400, Peng Zang wrote: > Part of what made OCaml > attractive for me was its compactness. Take "[x::[y::[z::t]]]" for example, > it's quite nasty compared to just "x::y::z::t". See http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-camlp4/manual007.html#toc20 there is an other syntax: [x; y; z :: t]. By the way, the revised syntax may ease moves through the code, due to the presence of more brackets, from which one could jump from one to another.