On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:21:02PM -0400, Krishnaswami, Neel wrote:
> Patrick M Doane [mailto:patrick@watson.org] wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm convinced that the include scheme, when properly integrated with
> > > modules, will be sufficient. We need more experience with 
> > > the current scheme. 
> > 
> > I'm convinced now too, it took me a day or two to think things over to
> > come to the same conclusion. 
> 
> Can you describe how I'd write something like the show function in 
> Haskell, or the print-object generic function in Dylan? I've looked
> at the G'Caml documentation, and it doesn't look like it's possible
> to extend a generic function with new branches.

yet ...

i think they are speacking about an extension to g'caml that would udse the
include keyword and permit such extension.

Please read the previous mails about this thread.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr