From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 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 F22BCBC69 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 20:22:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4BIMvpF014959 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 20:22:59 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,523,1170595800"; d="scan'208";a="126372636" Received: from ppp8-148.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.8.148]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 12 May 2007 03:52:53 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Custom operators in the revised syntax From: skaller To: Loup Vaillant Cc: Caml mailing list In-Reply-To: <6f9f8f4a0705110715l48259b8cr11f22d333ed8d7f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <1884660607.20070511161455@moldavcable.com> <6f9f8f4a0705110715l48259b8cr11f22d333ed8d7f5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 04:22:49 +1000 Message-Id: <1178907769.6118.88.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4644B481.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; syntax:01 0200,:01 grebeniuk:01 syntax:01 readable:01 ocaml:01 overloading:01 bignums:01 matrices:01 overloading:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 dmitry:01 nums:01 On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:15 +0200, Loup Vaillant wrote: > 2007/5/11, dmitry grebeniuk : > I tend to agree when one says custom operators are evil. However, when > the default syntax uses operators, the custom ones are a net win : a > wise programmer will use their semantic load carefully (big nums, for > example), and sparsely, so the code is more readable. In Ocaml, there's no overloading: custom operators have big advantages for things like int32, int64, bignums, matrices etc, where other languages can simply use overloading. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net