[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@k...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] module types and polymorphic variants |
From: David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@ens.fr>
> I tried the following:
>
> module type MT =
> sig
> type t
> val f: t->int
> end with type t = 'x constraint 'x = [> `A];;
>
> ocaml gives me:
> module type MT = sig type t = [> `A] val f : t -> int end
This is already strange. Probably a bug: the definition of t should
not be accepted. Or is it ok because this is only an abstract
signature, not the signature of an actual module ?
> but this latter definition is NOT accepted by OCaml:
> "Unbound type parameter [..]"
That seems more reasonable :-)
> module N (M : MT) =
> struct
> type t = [M.t | `B]
> let f: t->int = function
> `B -> 1
> | x -> M.f x
> end;;
>
> The functor definition is refused because
> "The type M.t is not a polymorphic variant type"
>
> Is there a workaround?
Not that I know. Polymorphic variant extension only works for known
closed variant types, otherwise it would not be sound.
Note that all the above code would work if you defined type t = [ `A ]
to begin with, but this is probably not what you want.
# module type MT =
sig
type t = [ `A ]
val f: t->int
end;;
module type MT = sig type t = [ `A] val f : t -> int end
# module N (M : MT) =
struct
type t = [M.t | `B]
let f: t->int = function
`B -> 1
| #M.t as x -> M.f x
end;;
module N : functor (M : MT) -> sig type t = [ `A | `B] val f : t -> int end
For incremental extension of an unknown type, you must use a disjoint
sum. The coalesced sum provided by polymorphic variant extension will
not work.
module type MT = sig type t val f : t -> int end;;
module N (M : MT) =
struct
type t = [ `Inh of M.t | `B ]
let f: t->int = function
`B -> 1
| `Inh x -> M.f x
end;;
Theoretical thought: some other frameworks based on extensible rows
would allow what your write, but I'm starting to think that what they
provide is not coalesced sum, but rather a flattened form of disjoint
sum. Nice for some things, but harder to reason about for others.
Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
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