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 NAA21772; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:19:31 +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 NAA21044 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:19:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9QBJT500936 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:19:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00775 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:19:24 +0200 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:19:24 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment Message-ID: <20021026131924.D22900@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20021026092737.GC15534@cs.unibo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20021026092737.GC15534@cs.unibo.it>; from zack@cs.unibo.it on Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:27:37AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli 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". This is a good idea, indeed, but I have two remarks: - first, this is more a question of library than syntax; Camlp4 can do that, but it is a not really clean. Well, actually, it does it for the record label "contents" which is renamed "val" in the revised syntax (to be shorter). - second, it is a semantic change, and if programs using the revised syntax used the physical equality ==, this change would change their code into normal equality. Therefore, IMHO, this could be included only if there are several other changes, a set of several changes being more acceptable. > > 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 ... I agree with you, for the same reasons. -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- 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