On Thu, 29 May 2008 18:13:09 -0700, Michael Vanier wrote: > > I realize that this is how it works, but I don't understand why it > should work this way. AFAIK elsewhere in ocaml "int * int" always > refers to a tuple. Similarly, if testme's Foo really took two int > arguments I would expect to be able to create Foos as "Foo 1 2" > instead of "Foo (1, 2)" which looks like Foo takes a single tuple > argument, not two int arguments. I don't see why "int * int" and > "(int * int)" are different things.
Curried constructors are available in the revised syntax. But since the original syntax uses ``Foo (1, 2)'' for a constructor of 2 arguments, it is declared ``Foo of int * int'' by analogy with products. Hence the small glitch you noticed (in general that causes no problems however). My 0.02€, ChriS _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
