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 LAA19871; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:28:02 +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 LAA19501 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:28:01 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from smtp2.cp.tin.it (vsmtp2.tin.it [212.216.176.222]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9Q9S0528885 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:28:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dalamar.takhisis.org (80.117.62.152) by smtp2.cp.tin.it (6.5.019) id 3DB5E7CA00188656 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:28:00 +0200 Received: from lordsoth.takhisis.org (lordsoth.takhisis.org [192.168.1.119]) by dalamar.takhisis.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-7) with ESMTP id g9Q9S0Ff002249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:28:00 +0200 Received: from lordsoth.takhisis.org (lordsoth.takhisis.org [192.168.1.119]) by lordsoth.takhisis.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-7) with ESMTP id g9Q9Rb7J015639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:27:37 +0200 Received: (from zack@localhost) by lordsoth.takhisis.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-7) id g9Q9Rbp9015637 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:27:37 +0200 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:27:37 +0200 From: Stefano Zacchiroli To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment Message-ID: <20021026092737.GC15534@cs.unibo.it> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:02:47PM -0700, brogoff@speakeasy.net wrote: > comparison, and this change removes that overloading and uses a > fairly common (C, Haskell, Clean,...) symbol == for equality. It's an idea that is worth considering. It fits well with the consistent use of the other C like operators as "||" and "&&" and the disposal of "or". > Physical reference equality should be used rather sparingly anyways so > it is better perhaps that it not even be infix. I've seen somewhere the operator "===" for physical equality, infix obviously. It's not really diffused but seems to me that is really intuitive. > Another possible change along the same lines is having =/= or /= for > inequality, which happens to look a little more like the mathematical > symbol. Uhm ... I disagree here, changing an operator in favour of a more diffused one is comfortable, adopting a new one from scratch just because it look more like the mathematical symbol can be really confusing ... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney ------------------- 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