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 QAA31838; Wed, 8 May 2002 16:03:27 +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 QAA31828 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Wed, 8 May 2002 16:03:26 +0200 (MET DST)
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 PAA31691 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Wed, 8 May 2002 15:59:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from sarg.ryerson.ca (sarg.ryerson.ca [141.117.18.117])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g48DxOD23378
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 8 May 2002 15:59:24 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from sarg.ryerson.ca (dmason@localhost)
	by sarg.ryerson.ca (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g48DxNO09861
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 8 May 2002 09:59:23 -0400
Message-Id: <200205081359.g48DxNO09861@sarg.ryerson.ca>
To: "Caml Mailing List (E-mail)" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Naming conventions 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 May 2002 09:33:03 EDT."
             <B1E4D3274D57D411BE8400D0B783FF32A8D754@exchange1.cswv.com> 
User-Agent: EMH/1.10.0 SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) CLIME/1.13.6
 (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQ2YlTj4xGyhC?=) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga
 Valley) (alpha-redhat-linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:59:23 -0400
From: Dave Mason <dmason@sarg.ryerson.ca>
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

For non-OO style Ocaml, I agree that the type signature is usually
enough, although I also often use is_foo or fooP as predicates.

But, the original question was about objects.  In Java there is a
style that is fairly convenient, whereby mutators for objects return
the object itself instead of void (unit).  This allows doing:

    let theLeftFoo = new foo(42) in
        theLeftFoo.setX(...)
                  .setY(...)
                  .initBar()

as opposed to:

    let theLeftFoo = new foo(42) in
	theLeftFoo.setX(...);
        theLeftFoo.setY(...);
        theLeftFoo.initBar();
        theLeftFoo

I am undecided whether I think this is a good style or not, but it is
more readable if you like to give meaningful (and hence long) variable
names.  (If I'd used x instead of theLeftFoo, you probably wouldn't
have noticed much difference.)

../Dave
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners