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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL 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 53784BC6B for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:02:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (www.janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l29G2SXu011082 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:02:29 +0100 Received: from [192.168.250.117] [209.213.205.130] by janestcapital.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.10) id A51208DC; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:02:26 -0500 Message-ID: <45F18511.9060904@janestcapital.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:02:25 -0500 From: Brian Hurt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Till Varoquaux Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading References: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB74@selma.roomandboard.com> <45F080C8.3070307@janestcapital.com> <9d3ec8300703081434r6e4987d0l5f737d873f65d9ee@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d3ec8300703081434r6e4987d0l5f737d873f65d9ee@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45F18514.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; overloading:01 amusing:01 pointer:01 pointer:01 ocaml:01 insult:98 nazi:98 misused:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 explicitly:01 arithmetic:01 arithmetic:01 tend:02 constructive:03 Till Varoquaux wrote: > Hum... > > Instead of proving once again Godwin's law we might want to use > constructive criticism (even though I also tend to flame more than my > share)... No, actually, I was making a point. The fact that you don't like the point I was making doesn't make it a flame. Disagreeing with you is not an insult. Although I do find amusing the implication that bringing up pointer arithmetic is the equivelent to calling someone a Nazi. Spelling the point out explicitly for those who missed it: when considering wether to add a feature to a language, you have to consider *BOTH* the valid uses of that feature *AND* the probable ways the feature will be misused and the problems it will cause. You don't get to ignore the downsides. Because, if you do, then there's no real reason why introducing pointer arithmetic into Ocaml is not a good idea. Brian