From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA03459; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:02:05 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA03454 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:02:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f39G22P24362 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:02:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id JAA29247; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Christian Lindig cc: Caml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] petty complaints In-Reply-To: <20010409113449.A19116@lakeland.eecs.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christian Lindig wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:26:59PM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > > Another unrelated trifling question concerns the syntax of numerical > > literals. > > Now that the spring cleaning for OCaml's syntax (floats, labels, > constructors) is in full swing, here is my wish: Haskell allows to > use any identifier as a binary operator when it is placed in > backquotes: x `plus` y. These operators are often more readable than > the classic infix operator symbols. These terms have no associativity > and a low precedence, thus forcing to use parentheses. An > implementation would only affect the lexer and should not be too hard. > Would other people like this feature, too? I've expressed this wish here too. I wonder at this point though if the use of backquotes will be confusing to human readers due to the syntax of polymorphic variants. Anyways, the answer from me is a resounding yes. On the plus side for classic Caml, I have to admit that while beginners stumble over the lack of an end for 'let', it is something that the frequent Caml user really grows to love. As I said, I'm porting a bit of SML to OCaml and this is something I really like about Caml (though I do like their interCap naming convention a bit better than our under_scores :) -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr