Moreover we can translate lets to lambdas:

let () = print_endline "Foo" in
let () = print_endline "Bar" in
let () = print_endline "Baz" in
   ()

(fun () -> (fun () -> print_endline "Baz") (print_endline "Bar"))
(print_endline "Foo")

Further transformation to use bind instead of function application and
wrapping the carried value into a type, leads to monads.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM, oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> Maybe it can be called just syntactical sugar...
>
>
> ========================================================================
>
> let fun_a () = print_endline "A: FooBar";
>                print_endline "A: Baz"
>
> let fun_b () =
>                let () = print_endline "B: FooBar" in
>                let () = print_endline "B: Baz" in
>                ()
>
>
>
> let () =
>    fun_a();
>    fun_b()
>
>
> (* or this one:, of course:
>
> let () =
>    let () = fun_a() in
>    let () = fun_b() in
>    ()
>
> *)
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
> Ciao,
>    Oliver
>
> --
> 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
>