04:36 <chenglou> @ShalokShalom so you'd like a fork of reason?

06:56 <ShalokShalom_> chenglou: i like a version of OCaml/Reason, that is without those ; like in Reason, while it still offers a lot of the benefits, like clear tuples

06:56 <chenglou> yeah that'd require a fork alright

06:56 <chenglou> might not be trivial

06:57 <chenglou> @ShalokShalom_ fwiw in an upcoming change, we'll make most of the non-conflicting semicolons optional

06:57 <chenglou> optional at writing time; refmt will still put them back

06:57 <ShalokShalom_> thanks a lot

06:58 <ShalokShalom_> is there a course for newbies?

06:58 <ShalokShalom_> and your comparsion is a bit unfair: OCaml needs these ;; just in REPL

06:58 <ShalokShalom_> not in code

06:59 <ShalokShalom_> and your comparsion is a bit unfair: OCaml needs these ;; just in REPL

07:00 <ShalokShalom_> not in code

07:00 <ShalokShalom_> OCaml devs know that, which will result in a bad image of Reason, imho

07:00 <ShalokShalom_> which is a reason, to change this :P

07:40 <reynir> ShalokShalom_: there is (was) the 'alternate syntax', a camlp4 grammar IIRC. I think it's deprecated, though. It fixes some warts without changing the syntax too much

08:05 <Khady> It introduced some other warts though...

08:23 <reynir> Right :)

10:06 <chenglou> @ShalokShalom_ which comparison page?

10:06 <ShalokShalom_> chenglou: https://reasonml.github.io/guide/ocaml/

10:07 <ShalokShalom> reynir: i know

10:07 <chenglou> we don't mention double semi aside from repl and a mention in module body?

10:07 <ShalokShalom> i am more interested into something with less boilerplate code as possible

10:07 <chenglou> everywhere else has no mention of double semi

10:08 <ShalokShalom> it needs ;; in module body too?

10:08 <reynir> I think it's that let ten = 10;; imperativeFun ten ten;; imperativeFun 0 0;; isn't how people write OCaml anyway

10:09 <chenglou> we do list the normal way right above though

10:09 <ShalokShalom> https://github.com/facebook/reason/issues/1355

10:10 <reynir> ShalokShalom: yes, you need ;; in the above example, but it's more idiomatic to write let ten = 10 let () = imperativeFunc ten ten let () = imperativeFunc 0 0

10:11 <ShalokShalom> so we dont need to?

10:11 <reynir> If you write it the idiomatic way, no

10:12 <ShalokShalom> so why not use this one?

10:12 <reynir> what do you mean?

10:12 <ShalokShalom> i guess most OCaml users think like him

10:13 <ShalokShalom> that you use the way with semicolons, just in order to show you "are better"

10:13 <Khady> what??

10:14 <chenglou> @ShalokShalom not sure who you're talking about, but just to be clear: idiomatic ocaml doesn't use double semi, repl is a different matter, and aside from that we've only mentioned double semi in passing in the module body section

10:14 <chenglou> I don't think anyone's trying to show superiority through double semi or anything here =)

10:15 <reynir> heh

10:22 <reynir> Is »imperativeFun 0 0;« in reason the same as »let _ = imperativeFun 0 0«?

10:22 <reynir> Because let () = ... is not the same as let _ = ... :)

10:25 <chenglou> yeah we use `let _ = ...`. I think we should switch to `()`

13:40 <ShalokShalom> chenglou: as you can see in the linked Issues page, is it the case

13:41 <ShalokShalom> that dude is OCaml programmer and i think too, that it seems like trying to be unfair

13:41 <ShalokShalom> i dont say, thats your intention

13:45 <ShalokShalom> why do you use non-idiomatic OCaml?

15:12 <ShalokShalom> !learn CSS = https://github.com/typestyle/typestyle/

15:12 <ShalokShalom> oh, mixed channel