Re: Stdlib regularity

From: John Prevost (
Date: Wed Oct 06 1999 - 20:50:46 MET DST

To: Ohad Rodeh <>
Subject: Re: Stdlib regularity
From: John Prevost <>
Date: 06 Oct 1999 14:50:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: Ohad Rodeh's message of "Wed, 6 Oct 1999 09:25:53 -0400 (EDT)"

Ohad Rodeh <> writes:

> I have used OCaml extensively in the past few years, and I've had
> some misgivings about the CAML standard library argument ordering. It
> is a little bit confusing and not standard. For example:
> val Queue.add: 'a -> 'a t -> unit
> val Hashtbl.add: ('a,'b) t -> 'a -> 'b -> unit
> My general suggestion is to always make the first argument the <'a t>
> type and the second the <'a> type. The only exception to this rule
> should be functionals, for example, in Queue:
> val iter: ('a -> unit) -> 'a t -> unit

I have a slightly different proposal, but one which is along the same

Standard ordering is:

val ho_func : ('a -> unit) -> 'a t -> unit
val ho_func : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a t -> 'b t
val imp_func : 'a t -> 'a -> unit
val func : 'a -> 'a t -> 'a t


The basic rationale is that the most often-repeated item should be at
the front to make it easier to curry. Along with this, there's the
desire to have a consistent style for ordering arguments. The basic
style I propose is that for functions acting on some sort of agregate
data type the "importance" of the arguments is as follows:

Any higher-order function gets its function arguments first. (Idea:
the function argument determines the meaning of the function. Hence
it should be closer to the function than the other arguments.
Corollary: non-function arguments that determine the meaning of a
function should also bind closely.)

In an imperative case, the agregate argument should come next, after
any behavior-determining arguments, but before any single values.
(Idea: in an imperative case, the value "acted upon" is more important
than the value used in the action--sort of like direct object
vs. indirect object.)


give john pizza ==> john is the "aggregate", pizza is the value used
                    in the action.

In the non-imperative case, the "value" place should come before the
aggregate case--this is because we're no longer "acting on" something.
Now that we're not, the value determines the meaning of the function
which is applied to the aggregate, returning a new aggregate. In
essence, the function should be thought of in this case as taking an
argument and returning a new function, like map does, rather than
acting on something after receiving multiple arguments.

So, the basic ordering:

val func : determiners -> arguments -> result

val Queue.add : 'a t -> 'a -> unit +
val Hashtbl.add : ('a,'b) t -> 'a -> 'b -> unit +
val Queue.iter : ('a -> unit) -> 'a t -> unit
val Stream.npeek : int -> 'a t -> 'a list *
val S.add : key -> 'a -> 'a t -> 'a t *
val S.find : 'a t -> key -> 'a *
val S.remove : key -> 'a t -> 'a t *
val S.mem : key -> 'a t -> bool *


The * is where I disagree with Ohad's strategy. The + is where I
disagree with O'Caml's. As a note, O'Caml's strategy makes imperative
functions order arguments more like pure functions. This may make the
default currying order less useful, but is probably better than my

Hence, O'Caml's order is pretty good. :)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:26 MET