From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E3EBC0A for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:10:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [213.186.38.137]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id kATIAIKk031703 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:10:18 +0100 Received: (qmail 24898 invoked by uid 503); 29 Nov 2006 18:12:00 -0000 Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail177.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2006 18:12:00 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2006 18:10:18 -0000 Received: from vil93-4-82-227-140-227.fbx.proxad.net (HELO ?192.168.1.201?) (lists%philippewang.info@82.227.140.227) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2006 18:10:17 -0000 Message-ID: <456DCD00.2080402@philippewang.info> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:10:08 +0100 From: Philippe Wang User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: brogoff Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About the O'Reilly book on the web References: <45688DAE.7010309@ccr.jussieu.fr> <456AAABE.5020405@irisa.fr> <456CA3B7.1020508@philippewang.info> <9d3ec8300611281433q5509ccby65937fd4384f5a25@mail.gmail.com> <456CD1E7.80908@philippewang.info> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Ovh-Remote: 82.227.140.227 (vil93-4-82-227-140-227.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 456DCD0A.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; o'reilly:01 syntax:01 gotchas:01 camlp:01 syntax:01 ocaml:01 notation:01 ocaml:01 caml-list:01 constructor:01 clearer:01 tuples:01 declaration:02 revised:02 revised:02 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