Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?

From: Michael Hohn (hohn@math.utah.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 22:44:15 MET DST

  • Next message: Jerome Vouillon: "Re: Dynamic link"

    >> ...
    >> From: Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
    >> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:52:34 +0200 (MET DST)
    >> Cc: caml-list@inria.fr (OCAML)
    >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    >> Sender: Pierre.Weis@inria.fr
    >>
    >> > In another life I wrote lots of numerical linear algebra programs, and I
    >> > find that a little overloading would make the code a lot nicer.
    >>
    >> I admit: I don't write this much numerical code so I don't have many
    >> opportunities to complain about missing operator overloading there...
    >> ...

    Overloading is not needed in caml: remember that you can define your
    own infix operators. I have done this for a minimalistic complex
    number type, using +: -: /: and *: Since the first (or first 2)
    characters determine both precedence and associativity, this works
    well.
    This also avoids the mixed-arithmetic errors, such as
         x = 1/2 * y
    which in e.g. Python will always return 0, but give type errors in
    caml (when x and y are not integers)

    Cheers,
    Michael



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 19:03:46 MET DST