Re: [Ocaml-lib-devel] Ocaml indent?

[Maxence G. <max...@in...>]

> > What a pity when the type of a function (for example the order of
> > arguments) is *almost* what we need and we have to create a dummy
> > function, for example to change the order of the arguments...
> 
> How much of a problem is this?  I mean, to do:
> let foo x y = bar y x ;;
> strikes me as being seriously trivial.

Yes, but it really bothers me to define such functions in my code, because I must find a not conflicting and still meaningful name for these, or use
a function defined "on the fly".
Example :
I have a set module MySet (result of the Set.Make functor), containing the function
add :  elt -> t -> t

Now if I want to build a MySet.t from a list, I use fold_left like this :
  List.fold_left (fun set e -> MySet.add e set) MySet.empty my_list

I could have used 
  List.fold_right MySet.add my_list MySet.empty
but fold_right is not tail-recursive, so I think MySet.add should have the type
add : t -> elt -> t

In this case, I would not have to pollute my code with 
  (fun set e -> MySet.add e set)

You can say the workaround is trivial, but it happens quite often.

> A bigger problem for me is to make the arguments in a standard order.  One 
> thing that *always* annoys me in C is:
>     fprintf(stream, "string");
>     fputs("string", stream);
> 
> I'd much perfer to have a standard order for arguments, to make them 
> easier to remember.  For example, in data-structure oriented APIs, the 
> data structure to act upon/use should always be the first argument.  Etc.

I agree. 

> Having to look up the order of arguments every time you use the function 
> encourages programmers to not use the function.

I agree again.

-- 
Maxence Guesdon