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 TAA07695; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:43:06 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA07921 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:43:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from calmail-cr.berkeley.edu (mailfarm.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.61.106])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51Hh4EV019589
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:43:04 +0200
Received: from [64.162.212.212] (HELO tallman.kefka.frap.net)
  by calmail-cr.berkeley.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
  with SMTP id 34793536; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:43:03 -0700
Received: by tallman.kefka.frap.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue,  1 Jun 2004 10:40:14 -0700
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:40:14 -0700
From: Kenneth Knowles <kknowles@berkeley.edu>
To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strange syntax behavior
Message-ID: <20040601174014.GA9577@tallman>
References: <20040601171354.GA16495@excelhustler.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040601171354.GA16495@excelhustler.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40BCC028.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Spam: no; 0.00; knowles:99 caml-list:01 2004:99 parentheses:01 analogous:01 indentation:01 syntax:02 constructs:02 constructs:02 match:02 essentially:02 wrote:03 behavior:03 raise:05 raise:05 
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:13:54PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> In the case of if...then...else, the else clause appears to consume only
> the first statement following.  With try..with, the with clause appears
> to consume everything it possibly can, despite even attempts to stop
> that with a begin..end clause.

You'll need (try raise Not_found with Not_found -> p "exc"); p "done";;

I'd guess the reason the precedence is such is to require as few parentheses as
possible.  Most uses of try or match are not in a sequence of expressions, while
many if-then-else expressions are.  Essentially, matching constructs and if
constructs are not analogous.   Examples with clear indentation:

	if true then
		p "yes"
	else
		p "no";
	p "done"

	if true then
		p "yes"
	else (
		p "no";
		p "done"
	)

	try raise Not_found with
		| Not_found ->
			p "exc";
			p "done"


	(try raise Not_found with
		| Not_found -> p "exec");
	p "done"


Kenn

-------------------
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