Hi Bob, you can find more details about the syntax change and discussion in this slightly outdated PR: https://github.com/facebook/reason/pull/1299Long story short, you can write let add((m, n)) = m + n.Note that the ReasonML project actually includes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,YawarOn 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 writeslet incr(n) = n + 1 and incr(5)but notlet incr n = n + 1 or incr 5Fair 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 + nthen 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