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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A019BBC1 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:43:08 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvMAAMZXFEjCpx6wlmdsb2JhbACRWgEBAQEJBQgYln4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,713,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="10133243" Received: from smtpmin.univ-orleans.fr (HELO min.univ-orleans.fr) ([194.167.30.176]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2008 19:43:08 +0200 Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by min.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9C912B3E8; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:43:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.108] (APoitiers-256-1-82-157.w90-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.11.21.157]) by smtps.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B05F36E5B; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:43:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Standard syntax extensions ? From: David Teller To: Till Crueger Cc: Richard Jones , Arthur Chan , Caml In-Reply-To: References: <1209052182.6180.35.camel@Blefuscu> <74cabd9e0804251337m40811532yb359710630cdbdfd@mail.gmail.com> <20080426074157.GA15640@annexia.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:44:25 +0200 Message-Id: <1209318266.6128.16.camel@Blefuscu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; syntax:01 univ-orleans:01 cheers:01 0200,:01 elegantly:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 liquidations:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 slightly:03 let:03 let:03 complex:05 distributed:05 I think this would be useful. However, you can already do it in a slightly more complex fashion. >>From the top of my mind, with let ( /* ) f g = f g let ( */ ) f g x = g f x you can achieve 1 /* mem */ [1;2;3] with the added bonus that a C programmer will never be able to read your code :) Cheers, David On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 09:53 +0200, Till Crueger wrote: > I am posting this in this thread, because this would allow us to write the > above more elegantly as: > 1 `mem` [1;2;3], which is close to what was originally proposed. > > What do you think of this? > > bye, > Till > > -- David Teller Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.