For the record, here's a better version by bluestorm:
http://bluestorm.info/camlp4/pa_matches.ml.html
Rich.
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Arch
I think this would be useful. However, you can already do it in a
slightly more complex fashion.
>From the top of my mind, with
let ( /* ) f g = f g
let ( */ ) f g x = g f x
you can achieve
1 /* mem */ [1;2;3]
with the added bonus that a C programmer will never be able to read your
code :)
Ch
We can do that in OCaml, actually. I've seen at least three versions of
this in the Net, one of them by me. Plus it also works with streams,
arrays, etc.
Cheers,
David
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 14:32 -0700, Arthur Chan wrote:
> The python syntax goes further than just the "in" bit, in fact. They
> c
Arthur Chan wrote:
> That
> said, there are some of us who feel that that the python infix syntax is
> clearer, and as it corresponds more directly to the mathematical
> notation, it is just as provably correct as the List.mem notation is.
> If reusing "in" is a big deal, then maybe we could do "i
As Till Crueger suggested, sometimes the infix syntax makes more sense.
More than that, one of the intents of the original ML language was to create
a language that was clear in its intents and *provably correct* (at least
that was what I was taught in school. ocaml apparently isn't completely
pro
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:41:57 +0200, Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm guessing that there will be ambiguity because you're wanting to
add yet another meaning to the reserved word 'in'.
However I'm not sure why you don't just use 'List.mem', or even:
let mem = List.mem ;;
mem 1
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:37:47PM -0700, Arthur Chan wrote:
> Would it be difficult to have python-like syntax for List.exists? Could we
> add it to Hashtbl and Array too? I'm not too fond of python's general
> sloppiness, but the (x in mylist) syntax seemed very pretty to me. At the
> least, i
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 05:15:00PM +0200, David Teller wrote:
> Good idea. Would you handle this wiki ?
Sure, here is the wiki page: http://wiki.cocan.org/osr/batteriesincluded
Beside that, the wiki is self-handling :) Just point the people to it
and kindly ask to add their favorite extension.
Ch
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Teller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> camlp5... We're also not discussing original vs. revised syntax vs. twt
> [yet], although if you consider that some extension would be much more
> useful if rendered compatible with one of these syntaxes, please mention
Hey David,
Would it be difficult to have python-like syntax for List.exists? Could we
add it to Hashtbl and Array too? I'm not too fond of python's general
sloppiness, but the (x in mylist) syntax seemed very pretty to me. At the
least, it correspondes directly to mathematical syntax (x \in bla
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 06:59:50PM +0200, Berke Durak wrote:
> That would allow people to easily write tools that examine object
> files without relying on the unnecessarily britlle binary format.
> At the very least you could open it in a text editor and see if
> everything's OK inside, or simply
Am Freitag, den 25.04.2008, 18:59 +0200 schrieb Berke Durak:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:36PM +0200, Berke Durak wrote:
> > We absolutely need a standard serialization solution.
> >
>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:36PM +0200, Berke Durak wrote:
> > We absolutely need a standard serialization solution.
> >
> > I'm thinking of Sexplib of course but it could be another one. The
> reason
> > it must be st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ahh, sounds good. Thanks,
Peng
On Friday 25 April 2008 11:04:35 am David Teller wrote:
> The current plans are to have two sets of extensions inside Batteries
> Included:
> * a few will be opened by default
> * some others will just be part of the d
If you want to work on patching the compiler itself, please get in touch
with Edgar Friendly. He's getting some work done on that side. I'm more
interested in libraries and camlp4.
Cheers,
David
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 18:02 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Agreed. There are some glaring omissions, like
Good idea. Would you handle this wiki ?
Cheers,
David
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 00:16 +0800, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> What about the following 2 phases:
> 1) prepare a list of nominations, maybe as a page on cocanwiki
> 2) vote on them using a Doodle poll
--
David Teller
Security of Distribute
The current plans are to have two sets of extensions inside Batteries
Included:
* a few will be opened by default
* some others will just be part of the distribution, with instructions
in a common format, regarding how to activate & use them
In either case, we will probably have a slightly customi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 24 April 2008 01:05:44 pm Dario Teixeira wrote:
> Remember the recent thread about ocamlbuild+findlib+camlp4 and the OSR
> about standardising naming conventions for syntax extensions [1]. Using
> a special ocamlbuild plugin [2], the barri
Consider these three options:
(1) There is a "standard set" of syntax extensions which is not
officially part of Ocaml distribution.
(2) Official Ocaml syntax is extended with a conservative set of syntax
extensions, maybe just "open in" and "try finally".
(3) There is an unofficial, full blown
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:36PM +0200, Berke Durak wrote:
> We absolutely need a standard serialization solution.
>
> I'm thinking of Sexplib of course but it could be another one. The reason
> it must be standard is that it's difficult to provide
> serialization/deserialization functions outs
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:52:50PM +0100, John Whitington wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2008, at 16:49, David Teller wrote:
> >* what kind of syntactic sugar is absolutely missing from the
> >language ?
>
> I'd like a keyword "matches", so I can write
>
> map (matches (0, _, _)) l
>
> rather than
>
> ma
We absolutely need a standard serialization solution.
I'm thinking of Sexplib of course but it could be another one. The reason
it must be standard is that it's difficult to provide
serialization/deserialization functions outside the imlementation.
So Sexplib should be a standard extension, or b
On Thursday 24 April 2008 17:41:17 Martin Jambon wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, David Teller wrote:
> > * which syntax extensions do you use so often that you consider they
> > should be part of the language ?
>
> None because it creates unneeded dependencies between unrelated
> libraries.
Agreed.
Hi,
Thanks for your initiative, David!
> * which syntax extensions do you use so often that you consider they
> should be part of the language ?
Though there are a few so useful (open_in, list comprehensions) they
can almost be considered "standard", I still don't think their inclusion
by defaul
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, David Teller wrote:
* which syntax extensions do you use so often that you consider they
should be part of the language ?
None because it creates unneeded dependencies between unrelated
libraries.
The problem is that software packages can only grow or be replaced
because
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:42PM +0200, David Teller wrote:
> * which syntax extensions do you use so often that you consider they
> should be part of the language ?
Thanks for raising this up again.
I'm not going to make my nominations with this post, but rather a
methodological suggestion. Ma
On 24 Apr 2008, at 16:49, David Teller wrote:
* what kind of syntactic sugar is absolutely missing from the
language ?
I'd like a keyword "matches", so I can write
map (matches (0, _, _)) l
rather than
map (function (0, _, _) -> true | _ -> false) l
Had anyone done that or similar in caml
Dear list,
Now that the forge is up, it's time to (re)start thinking about the OSR
and what we want the future of the OCaml standard distribution to look
like. Other threads will be (re)spawned regarding various aspects of
that distribution, but for now, I'd like to discuss which syntax
exten
28 matches
Mail list logo
