From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422BABC69 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:16:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l28FGpwH017764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:16:52 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1HPKML-0006b0-0a for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:16:49 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] F# Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:10:56 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB5E@selma.roomandboard.com> In-Reply-To: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB5E@selma.roomandboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703081510.56667.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45F028E3.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; overloading:01 overloading:01 inference:01 statically:01 overload:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 hover:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 checking:02 numerical:03 symbols:08 actually:10 On Thursday 08 March 2007 14:41, Robert Fischer wrote: > > However, operator overloading (i.e. overloading symbols) makes numerical > > code so much easier to read that it is worth sacrificing some inference > > for it. > > Unless, of course, you like to know what it is you're actually doing. As overloads are statically resolved in F#, you just hover the mouse to find out which overload is being used. So you know immediately what the code is actually doing. > I highly suggest checking out the Programmer-to-Programmer book on C# and > their conversation about operator overloading. They do a nice job > documenting just why it's such a dangerous tool in the toolbox. Well, I've spent the past few months writing F# code full time and I can definitely say that this aspect of F# is better. Of course, you'll have to read F# for Scientists to find out why. ;-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists