From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD16BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue,  6 Oct 2009 16:50:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArsBAL/1ykrUnwdjjWdsb2JhbACCIJhYAQEBAQkJCgkRBrgYhCoE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,513,1249250400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="48060629"
Received: from relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net ([212.159.7.99])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 06 Oct 2009 16:50:46 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroFAL/1ykrUnw4R/2dsb2JhbACCINEwhCoE
Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net ([212.159.14.17])
  by relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net with ESMTP; 06 Oct 2009 15:50:45 +0100
Received: from [87.114.87.187] (helo=leper.local)
	 by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1MvBNF-0002o1-2z
	for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:50:45 +0100
From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Constructors are not functions
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:51:28 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <4ACB319A.1080608@wanadoo.fr> <200910061415.48065.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <005501ca468d$dc9b51a0$95d1f4e0$@metastack.com>
In-Reply-To: <005501ca468d$dc9b51a0$95d1f4e0$@metastack.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200910061551.28438.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
X-Plusnet-Relay: 5bb946bc945ea3de8780887d5f3e95b9
X-Spam: no; 0.00; constructors:01 2009:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 int:01 int:01 interpret:03 fun:08 ltd:87 case:13 david:14 www:84 october:16 

On Tuesday 06 October 2009 15:04:02 David Allsopp wrote:
> That's not the case at all - there'd be no reason not to interpret [bar] as
> [fun x y -> Bar(x, y)] for [Bar of int * int].

The reason is that it is a PITA. :-)

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e