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
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 :)
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, it
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
map (function
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 outside
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
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
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 default
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. There
