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,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F88BC6B for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:57:28 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHTN80bAXQImh2dsb2JhbACCcospAgEICic X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,285,1186351200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1207780" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2007 22:59:02 +0200 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8LKw9fo015511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:58:09 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,285,1186351200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1552897" Received: from unknown (HELO mga03.intel.com) ([143.182.124.21]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2007 22:59:00 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2007 13:58:57 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,285,1186383600"; d="scan'208,217";a="283881495" Received: from orsmsx334.jf.intel.com ([10.22.226.45]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2007 13:58:56 -0700 Received: from orsmsx419.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.226.88]) by orsmsx334.jf.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:58:43 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7FC92.31881EE1" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Having '<<', why to use '|>' ? Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:58:42 -0700 Message-ID: <509223F0BF55E74FA1247D17207E7A0C01E7CAF0@orsmsx419.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] Having '<<', why to use '|>' ? Thread-Index: Acf7jBHQR4eGDffvQQa5zi/Zy3MtYQBBZoFw References: <20070917163617.0e6e0e7c@localhost.localdomain><20070918085310.GB12115@localhost><20070918161246.1ff37e29@localhost.localdomain><200709181742.27747.jon@ffconsultancy.com><20070919214938.76e4fa8b@localhost.localdomain> From: "Harrison, John R" To: "Ashish Agarwal" Cc: "Caml-list List" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2007 20:58:43.0214 (UTC) FILETIME=[31AC2AE0:01C7FC92] X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 46F43061.000 on discorde : j-chkmail score : XX : 5/20 0 0.000 -> 2 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46F43061.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; experimented:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 notation:01 experimented:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 notation:01 20,:98 20,:98 tahoma:98 tahoma:98 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7FC92.31881EE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Another possibility: I've used "f ** g" for function composition of "f" and "g" in some of my code. It seems quite intuitive to me, a sort of multiplication operation in the "monoid" of functions. Maybe people accustomed to using "**" for the power function will find it weird, though. =20 John. =20 ________________________________ From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Ashish Agarwal Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:42 AM To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Having '<<', why to use '|>' ? =20 > It would be useful that experimented OCaml people suggest a replacement for the heavily used composition operator ( << ) that is now reserved for camlp4... After reading all your posts and all previous posts I could find, I've started using (<--) and (-->), but I also wish there was an agreed upon notation for this. I have no confidence that my choices are good. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7FC92.31881EE1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Another possibility: I’ve = used “f ** g” for function composition of “f” and = “g”

in some of my code. It seems quite intuitive to me, a sort of multiplication

operation in the = “monoid” of functions. Maybe people accustomed to using

“**” for the power = function will find it weird, though.

 

John.

 

From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr = [mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Ashish Agarwal
Sent: Thursday, September = 20, 2007 6:42 AM
To: = caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] = Having '<<', why to use '|>' ?

 

>   It would be useful that experimented OCaml = people suggest a replacement for the heavily used composition operator ( = << ) that is now reserved for camlp4...

After reading all your posts and all previous posts I could find, I've = started using (<--) and (-->), but I also wish there was an agreed upon = notation for this. I have no confidence that my choices are = good.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C7FC92.31881EE1--