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 JAA21551; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:38:11 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA25384 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:38:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from mlabdial.hit.bme.hu (mlabdial.hit.bme.hu [152.66.248.201]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9S8c9D29917 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:38:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (kgergely@localhost) by mlabdial.hit.bme.hu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9S8c4Q26598; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:38:04 +0100 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:38:04 +0100 (CET) From: "Kontra, Gergely" To: Stefano Zacchiroli cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CamlP4 Revised syntax comment In-Reply-To: <20021026092737.GC15534@cs.unibo.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >It's an idea that is worth considering. It fits well with the consistent >use of the other C like operators as "||" and "&&" and the disposal of >"or". >> Physical reference equality should be used rather sparingly anyways so >> it is better perhaps that it not even be infix. > >I've seen somewhere the operator "===" for physical equality, infix >obviously. It's not really diffused but seems to me that is really >intuitive. I guess it was ruby. If we are at changes: I really dislikes the do { } notation. My suggestion is to use do end pairs, which is borrowed also from ruby. And if we want more ruby-ish (ada-like?), the matching can be match a with | 0 -> | n -> end And end is already a keyword, so it doesn't pollute the namespace, and the square bracket will remain to the lists. BTW who cares about the keywords used by the language? Rather to use one more keyword, than to use weird syntax... ((( this one is not so important If we are at lists, the current syntax is between sml and prolog: 1) sml uses head::tail, so the :: operator is common 2) prolog uses [Head|Tail], so requiring bracket is common So, "closing more structures" idea is closer to the prolog syntax, one could use it, ok, | is used in other contexts, so it couldn't be a too good idea. ))) I think this many changes is enough to release a new version with == and === included :-) Gergo +-[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+ | Email: kgergely@mcl.hu, kgergely@turul.eet.bme.hu | | URL: turul.eet.bme.hu/~kgergely Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656 | +-------"Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!"-------+ . Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio: http://hu.php.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners