From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA09851; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:49:54 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10146 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:49:53 +0100 (MET)
Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9UHnp526949;
	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:49:52 +0100 (MET)
Received: from artboreb@netscape.net
	by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id g.f0.5e8a760 (16216);
	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from  netscape.net (mow-m05.webmail.aol.com [64.12.184.133]) by air-in01.mx.aol.com (v89.16) with ESMTP id MAILININ14-1030124948; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:49:48 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:49:48 -0500
From: artboreb@netscape.net (Arturo Borquez)
To: daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr (Daniel de Rauglaudre)
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <54610CF4.15AD25CE.00958B05@netscape.net>
X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:38:04AM +0100, Kontra, Gergely wrote:
>
>> I really dislikes the do { } notation.
>> My suggestion is to use do end pairs, which is borrowed also from ruby.
>> And if we want more ruby-ish (ada-like?), the matching can be
>> match a with
>> | 0 ->
>> | n ->
>> end
>
>I like the way Ada ends its statements. However, as said in the
>chapter about the revised syntax (tutorial), we took the option not to
>end the statements with a keywork ("end", or "fi" or things like
>that), in order to show that all of that is functionnal.
>
>When you see:
>      if e1 then e2 else e3 end
>
>you don't have the impression that e2 or e3 are *results*: the "end"
>gives you the impression that everything is terminated. Often, newbies
>don't understand the functional way this statement must be read. If we
>change the syntax with this "end", it is going to be more difficult to
>explain then.
>
>This way, I regret a little bit the "do { }" of the "for" loop. A
>"do .. done" would have been more logical (same for "while").
>
>-- 
>Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE

I like and seems me a good compromise actual revised syntax,
also do { ... } is a good (and visible warning) that may be
side effects to care. No way to if ... else ... end as you
said it isn't FP (it is pure impertative style).
I prefer the revised syntax despite extra verbosity because
it overcomes some confusing situations of the official syntax.
(if with or without else, { and begin, } and end, the match
function ... among others).

Best regards. 

-- 
Arturo Borquez


__________________________________________________________________
The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp 

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners