syntax annoyance

syntax annoyance

[j h woodyatt]

everyone--

You know what?

> # type r = { x : int; y: int };;
> type r = { x : int; y : int; }
> # Some { x = 0; y = 1 };;
> - : r option = Some {x = 0; y = 1}
> # Some object method x = 0 method y = 1 end;;
> Syntax error
> # Some (object method x = 0 method y = 1 end);;
> - : < x : int; y : int > option = Some <obj>

It seems to me that the parentheses are sorta redundant, and it would  
be nice if they could be elided.  It's weird that the "r option" case  
works without additional parentheses and the "<obj> option" requires  
them.

Just venting.  Thanks for listening.


—
j h woodyatt <jhw@conjury.org>

Re: [Caml-list] syntax annoyance

[Jacques Garrigue]

From: j h woodyatt <jhw@conjury.org>

> > # Some object method x = 0 method y = 1 end;;
> > Syntax error
> > # Some (object method x = 0 method y = 1 end);;
> > - : < x : int; y : int > option = Some <obj>
> 
> It seems to me that the parentheses are sorta redundant, and it would  
> be nice if they could be elided.  It's weird that the "r option" case  
> works without additional parentheses and the "<obj> option" requires  
> them.

Look at the above two lines, and tell me which one is more readable :-)
I hesitated a while before deciding the priority, particularly
considering that the similar looking "begin ... end" doesn't need
parentheses. But I concluded that you don't want _too_ many
parentheses-like constructs in the language.

Jacques Garrigue