caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Philippe Wang <lists@philippewang.info>
To: brogoff <brogoff@speakeasy.net>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:10:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0611290916390.23837@shell2.speakeasy.net>

brogoff a écrit :

> That would be a more interesting comment if you gave some reasons
> as to why you believe that. I prefer the Revised syntax, for reasons
> of overall consistency and because it removes a few gotchas, but for
> various nontechnical reasons (tiny user community, questions about the
> future of CamlP4 and the level of support for it, etc.) would not
> switch over.

Maybe it's because I know the standard syntax quite well.
Or maybe because there are some things that are too weird in the revised 
syntax, like lists stuff.

Like that :

OCaml		Revised
x::y::z::t	[x::[y::[z::t]]]
x::y::z::t	[x; y; z :: t]

=> It's too weird for me.

The reversed notation for types : I don't like it either.
(maybe just because I'm not used to that)

In declaration of a concrete type, brackets must enclose the constructor 
declarations:
OCaml	Revised
type t = A of i | B;;	type t = [ A of i | B ];
Why is it so much better to add brackets? To me they are useless...
Do they really make things clearer for some people?

Well, I am not going to say all I like and all I don't.
Of course there things that are potentially "better", like parenthesis 
around tuples. But I prefer not having to put them systematically.
There are good ideas in the revised syntax, but it doesn't fit my tastes 8-)

--
Philippe Wang


  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-29 18:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-25 18:38 Francois Colonna
2006-11-27  9:07 ` [Caml-list] " Sebastien Ferre
2006-11-28 21:01   ` Philippe Wang
2006-11-28 22:33     ` Till Varoquaux
2006-11-28 22:47       ` Martin Jambon
2006-11-29  0:18         ` Philippe Wang
2006-11-29  1:48           ` Martin Jambon
2006-11-29 15:26             ` Philippe Wang
2006-11-29 17:52             ` Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS
2006-11-29 17:25           ` brogoff
2006-11-29 18:10             ` Philippe Wang [this message]
2006-11-30  2:30               ` skaller
2006-11-30 18:20                 ` Tom
2006-12-01  3:21                   ` skaller
2006-12-01  6:48                     ` Tom
2006-11-29 21:20             ` Jon Harrop
2006-11-29 21:25               ` Till Varoquaux
2006-12-01  0:12               ` brogoff
2006-11-28 23:07       ` Philippe Wang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info \
    --to=lists@philippewang.info \
    --cc=brogoff@speakeasy.net \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).