From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA30617 for caml-redistribution; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:26:40 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA21256 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:55:16 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mail6.svr.pol.co.uk (mail6.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.212])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01714
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:55:13 +0100 (MET)
Received: from modem-7.scandium.dialup.pol.co.uk
	([62.136.10.7] helo=toy.william.bogus ident=williamc)
	by mail6.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1)
	id 103MRo-0007c4-00
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:55:09 +0000
Received: (from williamc@localhost)
	by toy.william.bogus (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01429;
	Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:47:14 GMT
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:47:14 GMT
Message-Id: <199901211547.PAA01429@toy.william.bogus>
From: William Chesters <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Prefix operators in ocaml
In-Reply-To: <199901211442.PAA19110@pauillac.inria.fr>
References: <199901211442.PAA19110@pauillac.inria.fr>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under Emacs 20.2.1
Sender: weis

Eduardo Gimenez writes:
 > 
 > Hello,
 > 
 > Which is the "prefix" name in Ocaml for the multiplication on
 > integers? The symbols (+), (/), etc. work fine for the other
 > arithmetic operations, but the symbol (*) does not.

LOL :) :).

It's because (* begins a comment *).
You have to write ( * ).

This is truly disgusting and is on a par with C++'s "idiom"

	List<Array<int> >

 > Similarly, is there any prefix name for the list constructor (a::l) ?
 > I am thinking in something like (::) .... 

Yes, this is an example where following SML/NJ's habit of treating
constructors more uniformly with functions would be advantageous.
Although for all I know there may be implementation reasons not to do
it.