Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
grammar for class types, reraised
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 1999-06-14 (15:47)
From: Hendrik Tews <tews@t...>
Subject: grammar for class types, reraised

on May 14th I sent the appended message to the ocaml mailing
list. Unfortunately I haven't seen any answer so far. Could one
of the developers please answer these questions (or give some

1. What is the difference between

# class type b = [int, string] a;;


# type c = (int, string) a;;  

assuming some class type a with two type parameters?

And why do I have to use different parentheses in both cases?
(Yes, I know, it's what the manual says, but I would expect that
one kind of parentheses should be enough for all kind of type
parameters. )

2. Why is it not possible to add type constraints to the first
kind of type abbreviation, like in 

class type ['a] c = ['a, string] a constraint 'a = int;;

3. (To re-raise a question from John Prevost which has never been
addressed:) Why is it not possible to mix type definitions and
class type definitions like in

# class type a = object method m : a end
# and
# type b = Node of a | Tree of b * b

(Yes, it is possible to use the < ... > notation, but it is not
possible to use # with such types.)