Re: [Caml-list] ReasonML concrete syntax

[Viet Le <vietlq85@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2139 bytes --]

Such a terrible way to cave in to appear more JS-esque. I really hope OCaml
community doesn't adopt this style because it's confusing, inelegant and
superficial.

Viet.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 at 00:11, Yawar Amin <yawar.amin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bob, you can find more details about the syntax change and discussion
> in this slightly outdated PR: https://github.com/facebook/reason/pull/1299
>
> Long story short, you can write let add((m, n)) = m + n.
>
> Note that the ReasonML project actually includes several long-time members
> of the OCaml community. I feel that the new syntax has very well received
> in the JavaScript community and it will lead to wider OCaml adoption. It's
> a win-win situation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yawar
>
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Robert Muller <robert.muller2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The team developing ReasonML seems to be experimenting with concrete
>> syntax in an effort to make it feel as familiar and natural as possible to
>> JavaScript programmers. Seems like a good idea. But the present version
>> seems to hardwire parentheses awkwardly for function definitions and calls.
>> Parentheses are required for both function definitions and calls. So one
>> writes
>>
>> let incr(n) = n + 1       and   incr(5)
>>
>> but not
>>
>> let incr n = n + 1        or    incr 5
>>
>> Fair enough, but for multi-argument functions the parser seems to unroll
>> the parenthesized items (both parameters & arguments) to leave curried
>> functions. E.g.,
>>
>> let add(m, n) = m + n  or equivalently let add = (m, n) => m + n
>>
>> then add(5, 3) is 8 as one would expect. But the (m, n) in let add(m, n)
>> = ... isn't a pattern matching a pair, it's the JS-style sequence of input
>> parameters and the definition unrolls to let add = (m) => (n) => ... . So
>> add(5) : int -> int and all three of add(5, 3), add(5)(3) and { let add5 =
>> add(5);  add5(3) } are 8. There's probably a way to write an add function
>> of type int * int -> int, but I don't know how to write it.
>>
>> I'm wondering what the OCaml community makes of this. I find it awkward.
>> Bob Muller
>>
>>
>>
> --
Kind regards,
Viet

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3199 bytes --]