From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAB2BB81 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp17.wanadoo.fr (smtp17.wanadoo.fr [193.252.23.111]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k1OEi2Im019729 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:02 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1704.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9C4A170000A5 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from nono (ARouen-106-1-13-33.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.246.33]) by mwinf1704.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 44A3170000A3; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:02 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20060224144402281.44A3170000A3@mwinf1704.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <005701c63951$74a76720$0100a8c0@mshome.net> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Gava?= To: "Nicolas Cannasse" Cc: "caml-list" References: <00c201c638b1$b2b96860$1f570b50@mshome.net> <20060224.090116.89069794.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <4a708d20602231618r4839fe7wa695e9084df8fd40@mail.gmail.com><20060224.111728.88698334.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <43FF0CA9.8000500@motion-twin.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] (int * int) <> int*int ? Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:49:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43FF1BB2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; gava:01 gava:01 caml-list:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 12.:98 constructor:01 pair:01 functions:01 argument:01 int:01 int:01 tuple:02 seems:03 frederic:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > type a { > A : int; > B : (int , int); // 2 arguments > C : ((int , int)); // 1 tuple argument > } Personnaly, I prefer the "revisited syntax of ocaml" solution with "B:int and int" but I would like to write my programs with (B 1 2) instead of (B (1,2)) which is too close to "C (1,2)" and maybe its more efficient since we do not have to build the pair (1,2)...and it seems to me more "logic" to have a constructor with n arguments to be apply to n arguments instead of a nuple of arguments...(I remenber that the ZINC could optimize the code when the function is apply to all its arguments and that the ZINC works better with currified functions...is not true ?) FG