David Allsopp wrote:
> > Is there a reason for constructors not to behave like functions?
> > For instance, one cannot make a partial application from a constructor:
> 
> This is how SML handles constructors, Xavier explained the reasons he
> chose to depart from this in:
> 
> http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-
> list/2001/08/47db53a4b42529708647c9e81183598b.en.html
> 
> I think it would be possible to simulate the SML behaviour in OCaml
> using camlp4 (if you assume that for [type foo = Bar of int] that
> future unbound references to [bar] are interpreted as [fun x -> bar x]
> instead of an error)

Tsk - [fun x -> bar x] should of course be [fun x -> Bar x]