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 UAA05096; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:32 +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 UAA05313 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:28 +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 i0KJLRP17342 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (markus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i0KJLRHn022654 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:27 +0100 Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id i0KJLR8r022653 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:27 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:27 +0100 From: Markus Mottl To: Ocaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ANNOUNCE: mod_caml 1.0.6 - includes security patch Message-ID: <20040120192127.GD19681@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Ocaml Mailing List References: <20040116093454.GA23909@redhat.com> <200401192345.10735.exa@kablonet.com.tr> <20040120173423.GA19476@roke.freak> <200401201952.56605.exa@kablonet.com.tr> <20040120185445.GA26921@roke.freak> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040120185445.GA26921@roke.freak> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 michal:01 moskal:01 preferable:01 caml:01 readable:01 patch:02 mottl:02 mottl:02 string:03 wrote:03 markus:04 markus:04 oefai:05 oefai:05 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Michal Moskal wrote: > Yes, of course you can have well defined semantic for any string of > characters. But that's not the point. You say it's more readable -- > you're probably right. I say it *can* be confusing. That's the usual problem: programmers can always write illegible code. "where" could make things easier to read in some cases, more difficult in others. The programmer could decide in each case what solution would be preferable (to him, that is). -- Markus Mottl http://www.oefai.at/~markus markus@oefai.at ------------------- 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