On 2018-02-14 15:02, Chet Murthy wrote:

> I remember back in the day Pierre Weis explaining to me that this
> syntactic trade-off was made in order to allow that "let" and "match"
> didn't have ending key-words (e.g. "end").

I would understand and accept that choice.  But the larger question is,
why was the semicolon overloaded like this?  In SML the semicolon serves
just one purpose: separating consecutive imperative statements (well it
can also separate declarations but that is optional).  Why has CAML
chosen to use the semicolon in list and record patterns and values,
instead of the comma like SML?

> Unlike in SML/NJ.

SML has multiple implementations (as implied in the S).

--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

--
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs