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 TAA02031; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:31:56 +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 TAA06397 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:31:55 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i51HVrSH025441
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:31:54 +0200
Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara)
	 by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1BVD7A-000PL9-LW
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:31:52 +0000
From: Jon Harrop <jdh30@cam.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Cambridge
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strange syntax behavior
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:30:32 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <20040601171354.GA16495@excelhustler.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040601171354.GA16495@excelhustler.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200406011830.32881.jdh30@cam.ac.uk>
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40BCBD89.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 bug:01 misleading:01 indentation:01 compiler:01 emacs:01 syntax:02 match:02 match:02 behavior:03 behavior:03 brackets:95 seems:05 meant:05 meant:05 
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk


> In the case of if...then...else, the else clause appears to consume only
> the first statement following.

Yes, it is looking for an expression:

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

You may have meant:

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

> With try..with, the with clause appears 
> to consume everything it possibly can, despite even attempts to stop
> that with a begin..end clause.

Yes, it is looking for pattern matches.

try
  p "test"
with
  Not_found ->
    begin
      p "exc";
    end;
    p "done";;

You probably meant:

begin
  try
    p "test"
  with
    Not_found ->
      p "exc";
end;
p "done";;

> Is this a bug or a feature?  If a feature, why is this so?  the
> try..with behavior seems highly misleading.

I got a feeling for how these sorts of things work by looking at the 
indentation style (in emacs). It's fairly obvious that pattern matches 
(including "try ... with ..." as well as just "match ... with ...") need 
either brackets or "begin ... end" to nest them as, without this, the 
compiler couldn't tell which pattern was matching which match.

Cheers,
Jon.

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