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 OAA00185; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:42:34 +0200 (MET DST) 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 OAA32756 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:42:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.25]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7NCgWv28372; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:42:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D6246E80014198C; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:42:32 +0200 Received: from iliana (80.9.105.210) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D49FF14007554F9; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:42:32 +0200 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17iDi6-0000FP-00; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:38:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:38:32 +0200 To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Tim Freeman , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why are type functions postfix? Message-ID: <20020823123832.GA940@iliana> References: <20020812190521.587CF7F66@lobus.fungible.com> <20020823112404.C28346@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020823112404.C28346@pauillac.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > In OCAML and other ML dialects I've used, you say: > > > > let x: int ref = ref 3 > > > > Is there any reason that type functions like the first "ref" are > > postfix, unlike function application like the second "ref" that is > > prefix? > > I think it's mostly historical: the original LCF ML used the postfix > syntax, and this syntax was kept in SML as well as in Caml. Is it not because in the type notation, int ref is similar to int list, while in the function application, ref 3 is similar to a constructor application like Some 3 for example ? Or are you saying that even this kind of notations come from the original LCF ML ? Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- 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