English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Type annotations.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2000-12-18 (14:53)
From: Ohad Rodeh <orodeh@c...>
Subject: Type annotations.
  I'd love to see this added to the distribution, even if only 
as an optional compile time flag. Allowing polymorphic recursion, and
mitigating the record naming problem are worthy goals, 


> There are a few things that work well with this approach, polymorphic
> recursion being one. But it is not as general as it seems.
> A simple scheme is to assume that you can give explicitely a type to
> an identifier, use this type to resolve ambiguities, and check
> afterwards that this type is correct.
> With such a scheme,
>      let w : t = {x=1;y=2} in w.x
> will indeed be correctly handled.
> However, this breaks as soon as an annotation is lacking:
>      let w : t = {x=1;y=2} in
>      let v = w in
>      w.x
> Similarly, pairs won't work
>      let w : t * int = ({x=1;y=2}, 3) in (fst w).x
> Indeed, while w was given a special "assumed" type, propagating such
> assumed types through definitions and function calls is much more
> subtle.
> In a paper by Didier Remy and myself [1], we designed a system that
> could do a fair amount of "assumed" type propagation. This was
> intended for providing first class polymorphism and polymorphic
> methods, and was implemented in Objective Label. This could also be
> used for typing records, while some might see it as an overkill.
> But this is much more complex than what you are calling PRIOR.
> And this is not principal in the strict meaning (due to a mischevious
> side-effect of the value only prolymorphism rule).
> I am currently working on reintegrating this feature in ocaml. However
> it is not yet clear whether it can be made cheap enough to make it
> into the main stream version (type inference becomes slower).
> And then some might discuss the fact it would require people to learn
> yet another set of rules about how assumed types are propagated.
> Cheers,
> Jacques
> [1] Extending ML with semi-explicit higher order polymorphism,
>     Information and Computation 155, december 1999, pages 134-171.