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
About the O'Reilly book on the web
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2006-11-29 (18:10)
From: Philippe Wang <lists@p...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web
brogoff a écrit :

> That would be a more interesting comment if you gave some reasons
> as to why you believe that. I prefer the Revised syntax, for reasons
> of overall consistency and because it removes a few gotchas, but for
> various nontechnical reasons (tiny user community, questions about the
> future of CamlP4 and the level of support for it, etc.) would not
> switch over.

Maybe it's because I know the standard syntax quite well.
Or maybe because there are some things that are too weird in the revised 
syntax, like lists stuff.

Like that :

OCaml		Revised
x::y::z::t	[x::[y::[z::t]]]
x::y::z::t	[x; y; z :: t]

=> It's too weird for me.

The reversed notation for types : I don't like it either.
(maybe just because I'm not used to that)

In declaration of a concrete type, brackets must enclose the constructor 
OCaml	Revised
type t = A of i | B;;	type t = [ A of i | B ];
Why is it so much better to add brackets? To me they are useless...
Do they really make things clearer for some people?

Well, I am not going to say all I like and all I don't.
Of course there things that are potentially "better", like parenthesis 
around tuples. But I prefer not having to put them systematically.
There are good ideas in the revised syntax, but it doesn't fit my tastes 8-)

Philippe Wang