From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA00885; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:45:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA00969 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:45:04 +0200 (MET DST) 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 KAA25261 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hugo.int-evry.fr (hugo.int-evry.fr [157.159.100.81]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f358JE522440 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from (rinderkn@localhost) by hugo.int-evry.fr (8.8.8/jtpda-5.3) id KAA11291 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:10 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:10 +0200 From: Christian RINDERKNECHT To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] variant with tuple arg in pattern match? Message-ID: <20010405101910.C5410@hugo.int-evry.fr> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010404034802.0334fae0@shell16.ba.best.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010404123148.03366c90@shell16.ba.best.com> <20010404214918.V24841@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <20010404214918.V24841@verdot.inria.fr>; from Daniel de Rauglaudre on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:49:18PM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Dear Caml aficionados, On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:49:18PM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > > [...] by Camlp4, I propose to represent constructors with several > parameters with currification syntax. You can write: > > type t1 = [ Foo of int and int ] to specify two parameters > type t2 = [ Bar of (int * int) ] to specify one parameter, a tuple I think this syntax (and the associated patterns) is much better indeed than the current one, but, anyway, different syntactic constructs are worth if there is a different operational semantics, for instance if it is then allowed to apply partially a contructor, like in a previous version of Caml Light. I understand that efficiency is an important issue but it should remain as _syntactically_ transparent as possible... Best regards, -- Christian ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Rinderknecht Phone +33 (0)1 60 76 44 43 Institut National des Télécommunications Fax +33 (0)1 60 76 47 11 Département Logiciels Réseaux (LOR) WWW 9, Rue Charles Fourier, F-91011 Évry Cedex ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr