> Xavier Leroy wrote:
> - [...] ":" reads nicely, but I'm a bit bothered by having to type "(x : t)"
> for a type constraint rather than "(x: t)". Backward compatibility
> with OLabl is an argument, but backward compatibility with OCaml, Caml
> Light, SML, Classic ML, etc, is a much stronger one!
I fully agree. For instance I found yesterday in the OCaml 2.99
(99/12/08) doc (manual004.html), two "Syntax error" messages due to
this weird lexical rule...
> Looking at the OCaml lexer, the following 1-character symbols are
> (mostly) up for grabs:
> $ (user-definable infix symbol currently)
> % (ditto)
> & (currently deprecated synonymous for &&)
> \ (never used so far)
> ~ (user-definable prefix symbol currently)
> [...]
> Opinions?
They are all right for me.
Cheers,
--Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Rinderknecht Phone +33 (0)1 60 76 44 43 Institut National des Télécommunications Fax +33 (0)1 60 76 47 11 Département Logiciels Réseaux (LOR) WWW 9, Rue Charles Fourier, F-91011 Évry Cedex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 16:27:47 MET