From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q0KCeZAN004027
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:40:35 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAIdgGU9beTnJ/2dsb2JhbABDrwWCIAsBBUA9FhgDAgECAUsNCAKHepkzn26MJgSVGYVVjHc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,541,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="140726313"
Received: from krypton.hackadomia.org (HELO dogguy.org) ([91.121.57.201])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2012 13:40:02 +0100
Received: from [129.199.97.147] (dhcp147.dmi.ens.fr [129.199.97.147])
	by dogguy.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFB53200D2;
	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:40:00 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F196092.7060707@dogguy.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:39:46 +0100
From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20120104 Icedove/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml users <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [Caml-list] Custom let bindings

Hi,

I noticed that Alain Frisch tried to add custom let bindings (see r11894
and r11906) but it was reverted later on (see r11960) because no
consensus was reached (among OCaml Core team, I guess). AFAIR, I don't
remember seeing this on the caml-list. I'd personally vote for its
inclusion as I can see some uses for it. As any syntaxic sugar, it is
something we can live without but it could make things easier to read or
to express.

FTR, the proposal is to add the following:

	“let.e0 p = e1 in e2” will be expanded to “e0 e1 (fun p -> e2)”.

I'm not sure which part of the proposal was not agreed on (the syntaxic 
details "let.e0" or the whole proposal). Any input from the core team 
would be appreciated.

What do others think about it?

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi Dogguy