6 ms·

It's just a dodgy French to English translation which then became a convention. Instead of e.g. to_string's buddy being called from_string, it was called of_str

It's just a dodgy French to English translation which then became a convention. Instead of e.g. to_string's buddy being called from_string, it was called of_string. Here's a thread of reddit about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ocaml/comments/6es88t/what_does_the_of_mean_in_js_of_ocaml/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ocaml/comments/6es88t/what_does_the...

nequo 3y ago
I assume it also has a connection to how algebraic data types are written in OCaml. For example, the equivalent of Haskell's `Maybe` and Rust's `Option` is type 'a option = None | Some of 'a So calling this project "WASM of OCaml" is one way of saying that it "wraps" OCaml code in WASM.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Right but why do they use "of" in that way for type declarations? Ends up being the same answer: it's a reasonable translation from french for a non-native english speaker.
  - wk_end 3y ago
    ...except that the original ML uses the same syntax, and it's Scottish.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Oh interesting, nevermind then. This makes me question the french explanation for the other thing too.
  - c54 3y ago
    It's fairly colloquial english to say you have "some of something", I think this matches the ocaml language convention pretty nicely
dan-robertson 3y ago
It’s somewhat hard for me to decide how unnatural a translation this is as I’m used to seeing it in ocaml. My concise dictionary doesn’t have a definition that fits this use well. My non-concise dictionary describes the history of the senses of the word as “exceedingly complex”. It has been used as a translation of the French de since the 11th century and I think it gets some senses (eg derivation) from that. With a verb meaning create, this ocaml construction is fine in modern English (eg ‘make a string of an int’) and dates back a long way (OED offers a source from 893; this is sense I. [VII.] 20. a. in the second edition). So I think partly the question is whether omitting make in make_string_of_int (or String.make_of_int) is an acceptable abbreviation in programming.

nequo 3y ago

I assume it also has a connection to how algebraic data types are written in OCaml. For example, the equivalent of Haskell's `Maybe` and Rust's `Option` is type 'a option = None | Some of 'a So calling this project "WASM of OCaml" is one way of saying that it "wraps" OCaml code in WASM.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Right but why do they use "of" in that way for type declarations? Ends up being the same answer: it's a reasonable translation from french for a non-native english speaker.
- wk_end 3y ago
  ...except that the original ML uses the same syntax, and it's Scottish.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Oh interesting, nevermind then. This makes me question the french explanation for the other thing too.
- c54 3y ago
  It's fairly colloquial english to say you have "some of something", I think this matches the ocaml language convention pretty nicely

dan-robertson 3y ago

It’s somewhat hard for me to decide how unnatural a translation this is as I’m used to seeing it in ocaml. My concise dictionary doesn’t have a definition that fits this use well. My non-concise dictionary describes the history of the senses of the word as “exceedingly complex”. It has been used as a translation of the French de since the 11th century and I think it gets some senses (eg derivation) from that. With a verb meaning create, this ocaml construction is fine in modern English (eg ‘make a string of an int’) and dates back a long way (OED offers a source from 893; this is sense I. [VII.] 20. a. in the second edition). So I think partly the question is whether omitting make in make_string_of_int (or String.make_of_int) is an acceptable abbreviation in programming.