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 UAA19732 for caml-redistribution; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:55:00 +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 TAA02196 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:22:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA23749 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:22:05 +0100 (MET) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id TAA31990; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:21:29 +0100 (MET) From: Markus Mottl Message-Id: <199912071821.TAA31990@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Subject: Re: What will the new syntax be like? (O'Caml + O'Labl) To: dsyme@microsoft.com (Don Syme) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:21:29 +0100 (MET) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr (OCAML) In-Reply-To: <39ADCF833E74D111A2D700805F1951EF180142F8@RED-MSG-06> from "Don Syme" at Dec 7, 99 07:36:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: weis > The brackets may not be needed, though I'm not sure... As a general comment on this thread, I'd like to add that questions of syntax should take into account the advanced features of modern editors. It is probably not necessary to force a syntax which explicitely groups expressions belonging together as long as the parser can group them without: colorizing and/or font changes done by the editors make things even more readable. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl