On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:40:16AM -0700, brogoff@speakeasy.net wrote:
> BTW, someone (Brian Hurt?) brought up a nice simple example of where the 
> current generic polymorphism seems a bit weak
> 
> generic one = | int => 1 | float => 1.0 ;;
> generic two = | int => 2 | float => 2.0 ;;
> generic plus = | float -> float -> float => (+.) | int -> int -> int => (+);;
> 
> plus one two;; (* Can't determine plus without at least one type annotation *)
> 
> and it would be nice if in such situations the correct plus could be inferred. 

I haven't tried GCaml, I've just read the README you pointed out and it
seems to address your issue:

  How about "plus one one"? There are two possibilities: adding integer
  1's or float 1.0's? In such ambiguous situation, the type inference
  algorithm takes the first one defined as defaults: plus one one is
  typed as (plus : int -> int -> int) (one : int) (one : int)

I don't think that "plus one two" is typed differently ...

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  --  Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it}  -  http://www.bononia.it/zack/
"  I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!  " -- G.Romney

-------------------
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