Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] petty complaints
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-04-09 (16:02)
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] petty complaints
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christian Lindig wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:26:59PM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> >     Another unrelated trifling question concerns the syntax of numerical 
> > literals. 
> Now that the spring cleaning for OCaml's syntax (floats, labels,
> constructors) is in full swing, here is my wish:  Haskell allows to
> use any identifier as a binary operator when it is placed in
> backquotes:  x `plus` y.  These operators are often more readable than
> the classic infix operator symbols.  These terms have no associativity
> and a low precedence, thus forcing to use parentheses.  An
> implementation would only affect the lexer and should not be too hard. 
> Would other people like this feature, too?

I've expressed this wish here too. I wonder at this point though if the
use of backquotes will be confusing to human readers due to the syntax of 
polymorphic variants. Anyways, the answer from me is a resounding yes.

On the plus side for classic Caml, I have to admit that while beginners
stumble over the lack of an end for 'let', it is something that the
frequent Caml user really grows to love. As I said, I'm porting a bit of
SML to OCaml and this is something I really like about Caml (though I do
like their interCap naming convention a bit better than our under_scores :)

-- Brian

To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: