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] polymorphic methods
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-07-15 (16:24)
From: nadji@n...
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] polymorphic methods
Jacques Garrigue wrote:

> > # let f = (new c)#m ();;
> > val f : '_a -> '_a = <fun>
> Unsound. RTFM (polymorphism restricted to values)
> Try "let f x = (new c)#m () x"

Oups, sorry. I did'nt recognize this classical problem ...
In fact this example was an attempt to simplify my
next question, but I can see now that they are not related.

> But I don't see why you need ().

You're right. It was there for historical reasons and I had
not realized I did'nt need an argument anymore.

> > Can someone give me some hints why I can't coerce subd ?
> Sorry, but there is no handling of instanciation via subtyping.
> Currently subtyping and instanciation are orthogonal concepts: you
> cannot subtype in an .mli, and you cannot instanciate an
> explicitly polymorphic type when subtyping.

That's a shame because if one tries to use objects for manipulating
lists :

# exception Emptylist

class type ['a] olist = object
  method hd : 'a
  method tl : 'a olist

 class nil = object
  method ~hd: 'a . 'a = raise Emptylist
  method ~tl: 'a . 'a olist = raise Emptylist

let objnil = (new nil :>  'a olist);;
Characters 14-21:
  let objnil = (new nil :>  'a olist);;
This expression cannot be coerced to type
  'a olist = < hd : 'a; tl : 'a olist >;
it has type nil = < hd : 'b. 'b; tl : 'c. 'c olist >
but is here used with type < hd : 'a; tl : 'a #olist >.
This simple coercion was not fully general. Consider using a double coercion.

Too bad. Also this is the first time I get this error message. Does it mean that
I have to try something like (a : b :> c) ? If not, what is a double coercion,
can you give a case where is it needed ?

> I believe it's correct, but you won't make me write the code without a
> proof :-)

This is why I like Ocaml :)

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