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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51371BC75 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:35:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net (ptb-relay03.plus.net [212.159.14.214]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l29AZ3Ct019677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:35:04 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1HPcRB-0006GI-H3 for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:35:03 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:29:01 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB74@selma.roomandboard.com> <17af13780703081414m24548d77n7eb25ef9d551617c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <17af13780703081414m24548d77n7eb25ef9d551617c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703091029.01688.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F13857.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; overloading:01 notation:01 notation:01 inference:01 inference:01 backtracking:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 zimmerman:01 newbie:02 authors:02 ian:03 On Thursday 08 March 2007 22:14, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I agree with Robert and the analogy with maths notation only reinforces > that: when I was a student of maths, I frequently cursed the authors of > papers I was reading for using notation without definition. Of > course, it was perfectly clear to someone seasoned in the area of the > paper, because the notation was conventional - but a puzzle for a > newbie. When I read some of Luca Cardelli's papers on type inference I found that they were not explicit enough and required me to infer a lot. When that inference went wrong the backtracking was costly and seemed unneccesary because I could have read a paper 4x as long that required no inference. But aren't we all here because we like inference and brevity? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists