From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>
To: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
Cc: Charles Martin <martin@chasm.org>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: New Year's resolution suggestions...
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:27:02 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101030748590.12612-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200101031314.OAA32001@pauillac.inria.fr>
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Pierre Weis wrote:
> > (2) explicit declarations for operator associativity and precedence
>
> You mean that the actual implicit way of specifying associativity and
> precedence of users's defined operators is not powerful enough for your
> programs ?
I'm of the opinion that the Ocaml solution is a very good compromise
between a fixed set of reusable (pre|in)fix operators (C++, Ada) and the
more powerful Haskell/Clean/SML/Caml approach which allows arbitrary
specification. It is certainly true that in the Haskell and Clean papers
on parser combinators that I've read, the authors use good taste in
choosing operators, and since the papers are of an expository nature the
symbols are well explained. I wonder if the same holds for the average
working Haskell or Clean program which makes heavy use of infixes. What do
the Haskell programmers on the list think? Does the Haskell approach buy
much more in practice?
I think that suggestion (1) for overloading is significantly more important,
and helps quite a bit with (2), since it reduces the need for additional
operators. That and the mixin modules (or some other approach for recursive
modules) are on top of my language feature wish-list. I won't hold my
breath though...
> > Happy New Year!
If you read the ML-2000 paper, you'll see that neither user defined infixes
nor overloading were to be in ML2K. Good riddance to 2000 I say! The future
of ML is here now.
-- Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-01-04 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-01-02 23:33 Charles Martin
2001-01-03 13:14 ` Pierre Weis
2001-01-03 15:38 ` Charles Martin
2001-01-03 16:27 ` Brian Rogoff [this message]
2001-01-04 20:31 ` Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
2001-01-04 13:25 Dave Berry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.BSF.4.21.0101030748590.12612-100000@shell5.ba.best.com \
--to=bpr@best.com \
--cc=Pierre.Weis@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=martin@chasm.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).