[bitc-dev] OCaml syntax question

[Zorg 421]

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 <shap at eros-os.com> 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 <fw at deneb.enyo.de> 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
>> bitc-dev at coyotos.org
>> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitc-dev mailing list
> bitc-dev at coyotos.org
> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
>