I must be, but here's how I remember it (bearing in mind that memory is faulty).
A few years ago I took a unit in my comp sci degree, "Programming Paradigms". The language used for teaching was F#, which is heavily inspired by OCaml. At one point we were given readings on OCaml programs and a particular operator popped up -- something like "is subtype of", I fail to recall exactly -- and it looked like :>? or :?> or similar.
I bitched loudly in the unit forum about this operator, whereupon the professor politely informed me that he, in fact, had invented that little bit of syntax when he was a PhD student at INRIA.
He didn't flunk me! Dr Rowan Davies, still the most scary-smart computer scientist I've met.
I haven't ever seen that in OCaml. Probably an F# extension.
If you're going to complain about OCaml's syntax, I would start with having to use different arithmetic ops for int vs. floating point (+ vs. +.) and different indexing operators for strings and arrays ( s.(0) vs. s.[0] ).
You get used to it pretty quickly, and OCaml more than makes up for it in other ways, but it is a bit annoying.
He mentioned that he did a bunch of work object-system work on Caml that was published, but the INRIA guys didn't put it into the main version when they developed OCaml. It's possible it got transmitted into F# that way. Next time I see him I'll ask about it.
A few years ago I took a unit in my comp sci degree, "Programming Paradigms". The language used for teaching was F#, which is heavily inspired by OCaml. At one point we were given readings on OCaml programs and a particular operator popped up -- something like "is subtype of", I fail to recall exactly -- and it looked like :>? or :?> or similar.
I bitched loudly in the unit forum about this operator, whereupon the professor politely informed me that he, in fact, had invented that little bit of syntax when he was a PhD student at INRIA.
He didn't flunk me! Dr Rowan Davies, still the most scary-smart computer scientist I've met.