From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA03105 for caml-red; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:39:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16361 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:22:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from mrwall.kal.com (mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f04DM0T15668 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:22:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236] (HELO localhost) by mrwall.kal.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener) id 0000_0045_3a54_7939_4abd; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:23:05 +0000 Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: <3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B6639BB14@nt.kal.com> From: Dave Berry To: Charles Martin , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: New Year's resolution suggestions... Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:25:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr >>From experience with SML, I believe that any benefit from explicit precedence definitions is far outweighed by the cost. It complicates the implementation (e.g. requiring more information to be shared across compilation boundaries), it complicates the syntax (requiring new declaration formats), and IMO it can actually make programs harder to read (because you can't mentally parse infix expressions without checking the precedence declarations). Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Martin [mailto:martin@chasm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 15:38 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: New Year's resolution suggestions... >You mean that the actual implicit way of specifying associativity and >precedence of users's defined operators is not powerful enough for your >programs ? It is probably powerful enough as it stands. But it restricts me to the naming scheme that has been chosen for me, which I don't like. What if some kind of Hungarian notation for alphanumeric identifiers was enforced by the compiler? That would be awful. This feels kind of the same. This is not nearly as big a wish as for some kind of overloading! :) Charles