David Allsopp dra-n...@metastack.com writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
snip
Then what about
type t1 = Bar of int * int
type t2 = Foo of (int * int)
If you treat constructors as functions taking one argument then
But why (so arbitrarily) do this?
Because that was what the mentioned
Hi everyone.
I am having trouble getting my modules to work together.
I have 2 modules :
module Preprocessor =
struct
let run txt =
print_endline txt;
txt ^ txt ;;
end;;
module Main =
struct
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
Can you not just say that Bar in an expression is a function (fun x - Bar x)?
Ocaml has a recursive definition of values extension that make
syntaxic distinctions between constructors and functions even in an
expression
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Aaron Bohannon bohan...@cis.upenn.edu wrote:
Thanks for your detailed reply. I had a suspicion I would have to
read the source code to get the all of the necessary documentation.
It is actually possible to pretty-print the grammar rules during
camlp* execution.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:39:46AM +0200, roua...@softwarerealisations.com
wrote:
module Preprocessor =
struct
let run txt =
print_endline txt;
txt ^ txt ;;
end;;
[...]
ocamlc -c
As Ocaml modules are essentially ML modules, the MLton experience is certainly
one to be carefully considered.
People, please don't hesitate to elaborate about how (un-)happy you are with
ML/MLton alternate type naming strategies.
- damien
En réponse au message
de : Stephen Weeks
du :
