English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

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

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Frustrated Beginner
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-12-24 (10:29)
From: skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml syntax.
On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 08:52, brogoff@speakeasy.net wrote:

> > The native ocaml syntax has a bunch of strange inconsistencies. 

> If I believed that, I'd be using Perl and C++ more than I do. Nope, I think
> "hysterical raisins" and human laziness/inertia/risk-avoidance explains a lot.

Some of the 'inconsistencies' aren't: an 'arbitrary' decision
was made, and the result seems 'inconsistent' only when
you're not the beneficiary of the choice made :-)

As a comparison, Felix mimics many Ocaml constructions
but uses slightly different syntax in some cases.
In particular:

	<statement> ;
	match .. with .. endmatch
	if .. then .. else .. endif

but I still use

	let .. in .. 

unterminated. My opinion is that the endmatch
is ugly, longwinded, but otherwise desirable.

However, the if/then/else/endif leads to a
lot of extra ugly 'endif' keywords for chains,
which also force incorrect nesting.

The fix of course is to include 


as a suboption. I'm seriously thinking
of the equivalent for matches:

	match .. with
	elmatch .. with

and now, the original Ocaml syntax looks simpler .. 

especially when you consider that 'elif' makes
sense in a match, and 'elmatch' makes sense in
a conditional ... 

To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners