maybe it's just that the ugly scoping factor is somewhat compensated by the less-typing factor? and legacy.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > This is the obverse problem, but there is a visual clue here: two > statements not surrounded by curly braces should never be indented at > the same level. > > And clearly we could run emacs and get the OCaml let bindings indented > correctly. The right question: why is the OCaml community apparently > failing to do so ten years later? > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote: >> * Geoffrey Irving: >> >>> How is this different from C? >> >> I think C is the wrong comparison becaue C allows things like: >> >> if (cond) >> f (); >> g (); >> h (); >> >> Ocaml and Standard ML suffer from this problem, too. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
