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
[Caml-list] Five Questions about Objects
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-07-14 (10:24)
From: William Lovas <wlovas@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Five Questions about Objects
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 06:38:42PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> This only works if your object has a monomorphic type.
> The real point is that if object definitions were really first class
> in the language, they would not be restricted by these strange
> variable binding conditions: type inference would be enough.
> Since there is no theoretical problem here, it may well be a useful
> extension.

I was thinking about this recently, and it occurs to me that first class
object definitions would provide something equivalent to polymorphicly
typed records.  This would be a nice dual to the polymorphic variants
already in the language, i think.  Are there any plans for such an 
extension?  Would such an extension be feasible?

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: