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 VAA17102; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:41:45 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA16839 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:41:44 +0100 (MET) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g16Kfhn19898 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:41:43 +0100 (MET) Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id VAA01266 for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:41:42 +0100 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:41:42 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax foo Message-ID: <20020206204142.GB32204@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020205212131.GA1707@marant.org> <20020206182555.GA32204@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020206215807.A18430@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020206215807.A18430@kruuna.Helsinki.FI> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.26i Organization: Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Lauri Alanko wrote: > Note that the layout rule in Haskell is _optional_. You can always use > explicit braces and semicolons and forget about indentation. So at least > your point on code generation doesn't hold. Ok. > Personally, I find Haskell's syntax (with or without the layout rule) > infinitely more convenient than OCaml's. Anything that uses "end" to mark > the end of a block is hopelessly clumsy and old-fashioned. :) I agree that Haskell-code looks much nicer than OCaml-code. The question is whether anybody would want to write an advanced parser for OCaml... > The sorest lack in both the old and the revised syntax is the need for a > let*-form, ie. a sequence of bindings, each of which is in the scope of the > previous ones. I _so_ hate doing this: > > let foo = bar in > let baz = quux in > let fnord = fnarp in > ... Well, one doesn't have to indent each line, of course. It's still a bit painful to have all those "let"s and "in"s. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr