@gpopides to Programmer [email protected] • 1 year agoBrought to you by the ocaml gangimagemessage-square13arrow-up1205arrow-down116
arrow-up1189arrow-down1imageBrought to you by the ocaml gang@gpopides to Programmer [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square13
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink23•1 year agoIn other words, in OCaml, you don’t have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those. It’s useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I’m glad that Rust is more explicit here.
minus-squarevoxellinkfedilink6•edit-21 year agoyeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)
In other words, in OCaml, you don’t have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those.
It’s useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I’m glad that Rust is more explicit here.
yeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache
also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)