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] does class polymorphism need to be so complicated?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-08-21 (13:27)
From: Jacques Carette <carette@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] does class polymorphism need to be so complicated?
Jacques Garrigue <> wrote:
> From: "Jacques Carette" <>
> > Indeed - but that rather begs the question of why are classes and rows
> > different, as they (naively perhaps) seem so ripe for 'unification'.
> > 
> I'm not sure of what you mean by rows.
> At least, in the above examples, rows were used as a name for object
> types.

By 'rows' I meant the type of that name referred to in say
François Pottier, "A Constraint-Based Presentation and Generalization of Rows"
(available from

The sub-typing of classes and of rows seem to me to be highly related.  Treating classes as rows would seem to me to 
allow the kind of polymorphism that is being asked for in this thread (ie with no need for explicit coercions).

Jacques C.  

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