Yes, such a massive improvement to clarity.

Seriously there is nothing here I hadn't internalized within a day of working with F# or Python. Certainly nothing that justifies forking an entire alternate syntax.

Given that === is not a standard operator in OCaml, I fail to see the problem with clarity.

> Certainly nothing that justifies forking an entire alternate syntax.

You do realize that this is very much a subjective judgment, do you? Syntax does matter. You can argue that it doesn't matter enough to bother, but that's down to personal taste. Given the popularity that Reason seems to be enjoying, clearly, syntax is a sore point for enough people.

In any case, I fail to see the problem in general. Reason doesn't fragment the OCaml ecosystem, really, since it's just a different syntax for the same core language, and libraries etc remain. It's not any different than all the macro libraries for Lisps. Nobody is forcing you to use them, and you can still use a library written in Reason from OCaml, and vice versa. There's no real fragmentation.

And if Reason ever dies, all code that's written in it could just be converted to OCaml using the last version of their transpiler, and maintained as such thereafter.

So, what's the problem?

You really should go read up about this, because the actual answer is far more complicated than advertised. Hell, the Ocaml interop section in the official docs isn't even finished yet.

But this code does not compile. Even if you do not use https://github.com/ocaml/merlin you will always realize it at compile time. What type is y supposed to be to pass compilation?