> I see now. The syntax is just strange coming from OCaml. The
> declaration there is the OCaml equivalent of:
>
> type t = A | B | C of int | D of (int * string)
Yes, my goal was to have one single way to declare types.
Anyway, in that case its
type t = A | B | C of int | D of int * string
(no parenthesises) which is different since it's a two-arguments
constructor and not a one-argument constructor with a tuple.
The equivalent to D of (int * string) would be :
type t {
...
D : ((int , string));
}
Which IMHO tells more about the intended usage than OCaml syntax.
Nicolas
--
Neko : One VM to run them all
(http://nekovm.org)
