From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fmonnier@linux-nantes.fr.eu.org>
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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1A3BB84
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun,  1 Jun 2008 10:29:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvYAAOb6QUjVJFBbmWdsb2JhbACSCwEBAQEBCAUGCREDmUg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,573,1204498800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="13328267"
Received: from mx-out.libertysurf.net (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) ([213.36.80.91])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2008 10:29:43 +0200
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (91.168.185.43) by mail.libertysurf.net (7.3.118.8)
        id 482DD26E005DBFBC for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:37:43 +0200
From: Florent Monnier <fmonnier@linux-nantes.fr.eu.org>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Compose function for multiple parameters ?
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:39:01 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <20080531092406.093bd147@free.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805311324050.9181@martin.ec.wink.com> <20080531180520.11b32a50@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20080531180520.11b32a50@free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200806011039.01942.fmonnier@linux-nantes.fr.eu.org>
X-Face: -0"dKXwF0PiXr]fa$^)NJY7$;waqUckGcM7&q,VU?Xv\[=CiVM]g]pDs^xmfU9+Q=Z,OdfMHUR-7Ao%evJh.=a<Hal!+44Srfm>iq,#r0Ux0dm'!l|zeAXj||$>1_(L<B!CC@-^"bubMeM8TP@O/yW28<0VyR$k&k=QRau!ArSqYPuI/?_cuj"h5G&-w"DRb|{>v4Hc",&F}sbHeK0`SBA$_|XP
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam: no; 0.00; cheers:01 caml-list:01 defining:02 ops:03 parameters:03 let:03 let:03 pattern:04 perhaps:05 ecrit:06 function:08 fabrice:08 compose:08 kind:13 better:26 

=46abrice Marchant a =E9crit :
=2E..
> Defining the 2 ops :
> let ( <<- ) f g x =3D f (g x)
> let ( <<-- ) f g x y =3D f (g x y)
>
> is it better ?


let ( <>- ) f g x =3D f (g x)
let ( <><>- ) f g x y =3D f (g x y)
let ( <><><>- ) f g x y z =3D f (g x y z)

perhaps?
(more easy to count the number of caracters with this kind of pattern)

=2D-=20
Cheers
=46lorent