Haskell people sometimes complain about that OCaml cannot make an
arbitrary function infix. For example, they can write (3 `min` 4)
to get the result of (min 3 4) in Haskell. Can we satisfy them
without changing OCaml's syntax?
Here is a simple idea for making a function infix in OCaml.
I hope it will be useful for those who like Haskell's backquote
notation `function_name`.
The idea doesn't require any change of OCaml's syntax.
We use the following two infix operators.
let ( /* ) x y = y x
and ( */ ) x y = x y
Then we can make an infix operator /*f*/ for a binary function f.
For example, using binary functions 'min' and 'max', we can write
3 /*min*/ 4 + 6 /*max*/ 8
to get 11 as 'min 3 4 + max 5 8'. Note that the infix operator
( */ ) may conflict with Num.( */ ) if the Num module is loaded
and opened. You can use other definitions in a similar manner, though.
You have to take care of the precedence. For example,
3 /*min*/ 4 * 6 /*max*/ 8
will return 18 as 'max ((min 3 4) * 6) 8'. So we should write
(3 /*min*/ 4) * (6 /*max*/ 8)
to get 24 as 'min 3 4 * max 6 8'.
The original idea was introduced in my blog a few months ago
(written in Japanese, though). At that time, I used other definitions:
let ( <| ) x y = y x
and ( |> ) x y = x y
or
let ( @^ ) x y = y x
and ( ^@ ) x y z = x z y
where the definition of ( ^@ ) should be given in a different way
because of the precedence of infix operaters starting with '^' or '@'.
These operators perform a different behavior because of the precedences
of operators.
3 <|min|> 4 + 6 <|max|> 8 (* = max (min 3 (4 + 6)) 8 => 8 *)
3 @^min^@ 4 + 6 @^max^@ 8 (* = min 3 (max (4 + 6) 8) => 3 *)
So you have to write
(3 <|min|> 4) + (6 <|max|> 8)
(3 @^min^@ 4) + (6 @^max^@ 8)
to get 11 as min 3 4 + max 5 8'.
Sincerely,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keisuke Nakano
Department of Mathematical Informatics,
University of Tokyo
_______________________________________________
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
I don't really understand the point of the */ operator i your
definition. It's fuy ecause I've cosiderig the same problem recetly ad
came dow to this approach ( I'm redefining(@)... oe c )
Hi,
I don't really understand the point of (*/) in your solution (maybe
for aesthetic
reasons?). Actually, I tried something similar very recently (and
was talking about it a couple of minutes before reading your mail):
( * might interact badly with camlp4 *)
let ($) f a= a f;;
let plus a b= a+b;;
4 $plus 4;;
I guess it is only aesthetic.
> > We use the following two infix operators.
> > let ( /* ) x y = y x
> >
> It's fuy ecause I've cosiderig the same problem recetly ad
> came dow to this approach ( I'm redefining(@)... oe c )
There is actually an instance of this infix operator in the ocaml
sources (in asmcomp/asmgen.ml for instance). It is used to compose the
various passes of the compiler.
--
Jean-Christophe
> > let ( /* ) x y = y x
> > and ( */ ) x y = x y
The point is precedence: consider only /* then
x /* f y
means
x /* (f y)
whereas
x /* f */ y
means
(f x) y
Of course
x /* f */ y z
means
f x (y z)
but then
x + y z
also means
(+) x (y z)
Also you can write
x /* g h */ y
which means
(g h) x y
which is kind of cute, eg:
[] /* List.fold_left (fun x y -> y::x) */ [1;2;3]
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
-to Jean Christophe: indeed, that's actually the composition function.....
-to skaller: Hum, I *should* have tested more thoroughly my "solution":
let ( /* ) x y = y x
and ( */ ) x y = x y
let sub = (-)
4 /*sub 5
(* is -1 *)
4 /*sub*/ 5
(* is 1 *)
Regards,
Till
You mean exactly the opposite, right?
# 4 /*sub 5
- : int = 1
# 4 /*sub*/ 5
- : int = -1
Pardon if I'm just not keeping up with the conversation.
Sorry, seems like I've been very absent minded today...
Till
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2006-March/000935.html
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Infix_expressions
It seems that the second solution of the above page is similar to the
one just proposed for OCaml. For ease of comparison, in Haskell, ($) is
defined as [x $ y = x y] and flip flips the order of the arguments.
The first solution on that page can be rendered in Ocaml as follows:
let (>--) x y = (x,y);;
let (<--) (x,f) y = f x y;;
Now we can write
# 3 >-- min <-- 4;;
- : int = 3
We gain not only infix identifiers but infix expressions as well:
let a = Array.make 3 'a';;
val a : char array = [|'a'; 'a'; 'a'|]
1 >-- Array.set a <-- 'b'; a;;
- : char array = [|'a'; 'b'; 'a'|]
so we can use even three-argument functions as sort of `infix'...