From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA12366 for caml-red; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:39:40 +0100 (MET)
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 BAA28988 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:32:36 +0100 (MET)
Received: from elbereth.pgh.arsdigita.com (63-224-222-81.customers.uswest.net [63.224.222.81])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eBN0WX914052
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:32:33 +0100 (MET)
Received: by elbereth.pgh.arsdigita.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id D991E36B29; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 19:37:09 -0500 (EST)
To: Pascal Brisset <brisset@recherche.enac.fr>
Cc: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Ref syntax
References: <Pine.LNX.4.20_heb2.08.0012141610480.1456-100000@zigzag.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<Pine.LNX.4.20_heb2.08.0012211444520.26395-100000@zigzag.cs.huji.ac.il>
	<20001222122938T.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
	<E149OKL-0003m8-00@sepia.recherche.enac.fr>
From: John Prevost <jmp@arsdigita.com>
Date: 22 Dec 2000 16:37:09 -0800
In-Reply-To: <E149OKL-0003m8-00@sepia.recherche.enac.fr>
Message-ID: <87ofy4m0qy.fsf@elbereth.pgh.arsdigita.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.0.91
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

>>>>> "pb" == Pascal Brisset <brisset@recherche.enac.fr> writes:

    pb> On my wish list, I put a "-strict" option for ocamlc which
    pb> would remove freedom in the syntax. For example

    pb> - ";" means "sequence" and not "end of expr" (it is currently
    pb>   allowed before "end" in a block)

    pb> - "|" means "or" or "start of pattern" but not both

What do you mean?  In terms of "or patterns"?

    pb> - ";;" is compulsory

Oh god no.  Please, no.  I believe that if anything, strict syntax
should not allow ";;".  It's only necessary if you write imperative
things at the top level, and even then, I believe it's preferable to
use "let _ = ...".  If you're aiming to make things clearer, get rid
of it totally.

    pb> - deprecated "&" and "or" operators removed

So only && and ||?  That's somewhat reasonable.

But please, no, never encourage anybody to use ;;!

John.