From: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:08:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20000317170857.64628@pauillac.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20000317230543D.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>; from Jacques Garrigue on Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 11:05:43PM +0900
> There may indeed be good reasons for let-binding.
> However, if you look at the sources of ocaml, you will see that in
> many, many places such functions are defined inline without
> let-binding. I see two reasons for that:
> * you often don't want to think of a name for such a function
> (most of them are just 2 or 3 line long)
Is this argument relevant to the problem at hand ? You were speaking
of the advantage of using a label fun: for applying map to a ``long
multi line function definition'':
> fun:(fun long multi line function definition here)
If the function is ``long'' and multi line, I definitively prefer a let
binding. If it is not ``long'' I prefer no label and a short and
elegant (fun x -> ...).
> * it forces you to move the code around in a way that is not
> necessarily very natural. It's a bit like RPN: first define a
> function, then apply a functional to it.
> (We could of course ressucite the where clause :-)
Yes that's fundamentally the way it goes in Caml: define first
something then use it (static binding). I'm sorry, we removed the
where construct a long time ago exactly with this argument.
As you say below ``More generally, my experience is that''
* once anonymous functions are named, the code is clearer
* when anonymous functions are ``long multi line'' the code is obscure.
> More generally, my experience is that more freedom in the way to
> layout them increases the use of functionals. After all there are many
> ways to see the same function, different logical understanding of its
> meaning. And the fact you can use all these ways with the same function
> avoids confusion.
> Why should we decide that one way is right, and others are wrong?
You already answered to this question in your paragraph: I would answer
in the first place with the very reasons you are advocating to ask why
we should decide; you wrote ``my experience'', ``logical
understanding'', ``avoids confusion''.
So, we should decide that one way is right based on experience, theorems,
confusion avoidance, logical understanding, ....
Amicalement,
--
Pierre Weis
INRIA, Projet Cristal, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-03-17 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-03-14 16:53 Syntax for label Don Syme
2000-03-14 18:05 ` Pierre Weis
2000-03-15 3:15 ` Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-15 6:58 ` Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-15 21:54 ` Julian Assange
2000-03-15 11:56 ` Wolfram Kahl
2000-03-15 13:58 ` Pierre Weis
2000-03-15 15:26 ` Sven LUTHER
2000-03-17 7:44 ` Pierre Weis
2000-03-15 17:04 ` John Prevost
2000-03-17 10:11 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-15 17:06 ` Markus Mottl
2000-03-15 19:11 ` Remi VANICAT
2000-03-17 8:30 ` Pierre Weis
2000-03-17 14:05 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-17 16:08 ` Pierre Weis [this message]
2000-03-18 10:32 ` Syntax for label, NEW SOLUTION Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-19 2:29 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-20 18:25 ` Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-22 8:37 ` Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
2000-03-21 23:29 ` John Max Skaller
2000-03-29 8:42 ` Semantic of label: The best (only ?) solution to merge both mode Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-29 9:53 ` Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-30 9:49 ` John Max Skaller
2000-03-30 9:39 ` John Max Skaller
2000-03-31 4:34 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-04-01 1:53 ` John Max Skaller
2000-04-02 19:24 ` Christophe Raffalli
2000-04-04 5:50 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-04-03 7:57 ` backward compatibility Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-15 21:30 ` Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL John Max Skaller
2000-03-16 2:55 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-17 15:13 ` Pierre Weis
2000-03-17 17:33 ` Wolfram Kahl
2000-03-18 11:59 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-21 16:51 ` Pascal Brisset
2000-03-23 11:14 ` Nicolas barnier
2000-03-24 9:54 ` labels & ocaml 3 & co David Mentré
2000-03-24 12:19 ` David Mentré
2000-03-21 22:22 ` Unsigned integers? John Max Skaller
2000-03-22 16:22 ` Sven LUTHER
2000-03-23 2:08 ` Max Skaller
2000-03-23 7:50 ` Sven LUTHER
2000-03-24 2:50 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-24 15:59 ` Xavier Leroy
2000-03-25 4:03 ` John Max Skaller
2000-03-24 14:50 ` Xavier Leroy
2000-03-22 17:05 ` Jean-Christophe Filliatre
2000-03-22 19:10 ` Markus Mottl
2000-03-23 2:41 ` Max Skaller
2000-03-22 19:47 ` Xavier Leroy
2000-03-23 12:55 ` John Max Skaller
2000-03-16 8:50 ` Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL Pascal Brisset
2000-03-17 11:15 ` Sven LUTHER
2000-03-18 0:04 ` Syntax for label, ANOTHER " Steven Thomson
2000-03-15 20:39 ` Syntax for label (and more) Xavier Leroy
2000-03-17 10:03 ` Christian RINDERKNECHT
2000-03-17 17:19 ` Christophe Raffalli
2000-03-21 1:29 ` Markus Mottl
2000-03-15 20:40 Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL Don Syme
2000-03-17 9:48 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-17 17:34 ` Dave Mason
2000-03-18 0:26 ` Jacques Garrigue
2000-03-23 13:07 ` Sven LUTHER
2000-03-17 17:03 Don Syme
2000-03-17 19:24 ` John Prevost
2000-03-17 21:33 Damien Doligez
2000-03-18 21:07 ` Frank Atanassow
2000-03-18 22:40 ` John Prevost
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20000317170857.64628@pauillac.inria.fr \
--to=pierre.weis@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).