On Monday, Mar 3, 2003, at 12:10 US/Pacific, brogoff@speakeasy.net 
wrote:
>
> That's why I said "Agitate for extensional polyorphism!". You really 
> want a
> way to overload similar notations.

If "extensional polymorphism" is what I want in order to be able to 
define an operator ( >>= ) that performs the monad bind operation on 
arbitrary monads, then yeah-- I'm all for it.

I recently discovered the power of monadic programming, but I am in no 
hurry to switch to Haskell in order to get a nice clean syntax for it.

If "extensional polymorphism" will get me a cleaner syntax for monadic 
programming without forcing me to give up all the things that make 
Ocaml the best language in the universe for imperative programming, 
then sign me up right here right now.

How would extensional polymorphism get me what I want?


-- 
j h woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com>

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners