Jacques Le Normand wrote: > Assuming I understand this syntax, the following currently valid type > definition would have two interpretations: [...]
Don't take the syntax from my 2008 CUG talk too seriously, it was just a mock-up for the purpose of the talk. Besides, it's too early for a syntax war :-) This said, Coq could be another source of syntactic inspiration: it has several equivalent syntaxes for inductive type declarations (a superset of GADTs), one Haskell-like, others more Caml-like. - Xavier Leroy _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
