[Caml-list] Notation for currying

[Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com>]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:34:11PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> 
> I personally believe that currified constructor syntax would be a better
> choice, and that using non-currified constructors is a historical mistake
> of SML/Caml. But I am also not convinced that efforts to change it today
> are worth the trouble, and prefer to concentrate on improving other parts
> of the OCaml ecosystem.

Perhaps there should be explicit syntax for currying, such as
   f a b _
instead of 
   f a b
That would permit currying in other argument positions:
   f a _ c
though I suspect _ may be the wrong symbol for the current language, and 
I also suspect it's far too late tointroduce it in the current language.

I have noticed that almost a the situations where the compiler thinks I 
mean to curry I actually just left out a parameter by mistake.  The type 
inferences it makes based on these errors usually occur elsewhere and 
are truly mystifying.

-- hendrik