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=none 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 D2CAFBC69 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 03:05:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from stirner.roentgeninstitut.de (stirner.roentgeninstitut.de [212.110.109.210]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l4D15Irk028075 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 03:05:19 +0200 Received: (qmail 17062 invoked by uid 1000); 12 May 2007 18:05:16 -0700 Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:05:16 -0700 From: Christian Stork To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Custom operators in the revised syntax Message-ID: <20070513010516.GB16813@stirner.roentgeninstitut.de> References: <1884660607.20070511161455@moldavcable.com> <6ebe51ce0705121727v1dba74d8ia2690e031d0d8430@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6ebe51ce0705121727v1dba74d8ia2690e031d0d8430@mail.gmail.com> X-Archive: encrypt User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4646644E.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; syntax:01 0200,:01 iirc:01 syntax:01 harmless:98 806:98 021:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 revised:02 fingerprint:04 extension:05 chris:06 uci:06 On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:27:34AM +0200, ketti wrote: > On 5/13/07, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > >I've a tiny patch to do that: > > > >2 ``List.mem`` [1;2;3] > > > >I think that extension harmless, any thoughts? > > > What about: 2 īList.memī [1;2;3] ? Or: 2 `(List.mem) [1;2;3] Then you could even have operators with arguments. IIRC this idea (not this particular syntax) was proposed for Haskell' but wasn't worth the effort to make work with their current `single-op` syntax. Maybe it's worth it in this case? -- Chris Stork <> Support eff.org! <> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cstork/ OpenPGP fingerprint: B08B 602C C806 C492 D069 021E 41F3 8C8D 50F9 CA2F