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=1.0 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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6608ABC69 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:17:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from dedibox1.ambre.net (dedibox1.ambre.net [88.191.29.66]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1MGH5d5024959 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:17:06 +0100 Received: from [81.185.99.54] (unknown [81.185.99.54]) by dedibox1.ambre.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC0EC40014; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:17:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45DDC1CB.2090401@ens-lyon.org> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:16:11 +0100 From: David Teller User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Cc: frederic.gava@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Feature request : Tuples vs. records References: <7639252.205431172158497978.JavaMail.www@wwinf2216> In-Reply-To: <7639252.205431172158497978.JavaMail.www@wwinf2216> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45DDC201.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 gava:01 unboxed:01 cheers:01 syntactic:01 caml-list:01 tuples:01 tuples:01 tuple:02 shorter:02 essentially:02 float:03 float:03 frederic:03 let:03 Frederic GAVA a écrit : > Hi David, > > Another difference is that (If I remember) record of float are unboxed and not tuple of float. But perhaps it could be done. > I assume that's not a real difficulty. I might be wrong. > Also, I do understand the true difference between write > {x=1;y=2} (9 caracters) and (~x:1,~y:2) (11 caracters) except syntaxic one (I thinks that = is simpler that : which is more for type) > > > I grant you that it is syntactically shorter. So we can keep it as a syntactic shortcut. I'm more concerned about having to * declare every record type I use -- that looks to me clumsy and Java-like * differenciate between records and tuples during pattern-matching * having to learn/teach two different implementations of what is essentially the same concept * having to learn/teach that third meaning of operator = (the first one being comparison between values and the second one being its use in let x = ...). Cheers, David