From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id SAA28971 for caml-redistribution; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:20:32 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA23063 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:17:50 +0200 Received: from matpts.univ-poitiers.fr (matpts.univ-poitiers.fr [192.70.59.67]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA17133 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 12:17:48 +0200 Received: by matpts.univ-poitiers.fr (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA02365; Thu, 8 Jun 95 12:17:14 GMT From: calla@matpts.univ-poitiers.fr (CALLADINE Pierre) Message-Id: <9506081217.AA02365@matpts.univ-poitiers.fr> Subject: boolean operators To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr ("liste de correspondants caml ") Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 12:17:13 GMT-1:00 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: weis Is there a deep (or theoretical) reason for the particular status of boolean operators as "&" and "or" ( "prefix &" is not valid, for instance ?) -- Pierre Calladine Universite de Poitiers - e-mail : calla@matpts.univ-poitiers.fr Dept. Informatique Tel: 49 45 37 01 40 Avenue du Recteur Pineau Fax 49 45 40 10 86022 Poitiers Cedex