> I think you should really make a direct link to this page from either
Well, there's one thing I cannot do for you is to learn to browse.
There are at least 11 direct links to these pages from React.html,
without counting the two direct module definition links which I
thought you would have click
From: Serge Leblanc
> In the following types definitions,
>
> type trie 'a = [ Trie of arcs 'a ]
> and arcs 'a = list ('a * trie 'a);
>
> type zipper 'a = [ Top | Zip of (arcs 'a * 'a * arcs 'a * zipper 'a) ]
> and edit_state 'a = (zipper 'a * trie 'a);
>
> why is it not possible to describe th
Daniel Bünzli a écrit :
Unfortunately, it seems to me that Daniel's module is fairly low-level in
the sense that it implements the bare mechanics and semantics of FRP.
Yes, react is low-level and will remain. The rationale is that I want
the client of the module to be able to decide the applica
Daniel Bünzli a écrit :
Maybe I was looking in the wrong place, but I haven't found "the second case
of the semantics of E.switch" on your website. In fact, the way I learned
about React.E.switch was from the .mli-style webpage on your website, and by
trial and error.
Here :
http://erratique.c
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 14:49 +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> Excerpts from Serge Leblanc's message of Thu Dec 10 12:56:44 +0100 2009:
> > Hi, the documentation for the revised syntax explain that abstract types
> > are expressed by :
>
> The documentation is too old, abstract types now have the
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:49:43PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> Excerpts from Serge Leblanc's message of Thu Dec 10 12:56:44 +0100 2009:
> > Hi, the documentation for the revised syntax explain that abstract types
> > are expressed by :
>
> The documentation is too old
Any chance that it wil
Excerpts from Serge Leblanc's message of Thu Dec 10 12:56:44 +0100 2009:
> Hi, the documentation for the revised syntax explain that abstract types
> are expressed by :
The documentation is too old, abstract types now have the same syntax in
revised than in the original OCaml syntax.
--
Nicolas
Hi, the documentation for the revised syntax explain that abstract types
are expressed by :
type bar = 'a; but ocaml returns an error.
#
Objective Caml version 3.11.1
Camlp4 Parsing version 3.11.1
# type bar = 'a ;
Error: Unbound type parameter 'a
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/
> I still do not understand why there's the couple (tick', tick') and not
> simply tick', nevertheless...
The tick' on the left is the event you are delaying (i.e. the one you
will receive as an argument to defining function but delayed). The
tick' on the right is what you want to get out from the
> Maybe I was looking in the wrong place, but I haven't found "the second case
> of the semantics of E.switch" on your website. In fact, the way I learned
> about React.E.switch was from the .mli-style webpage on your website, and by
> trial and error.
Here :
http://erratique.ch/software/react/do
10 matches
Mail list logo
