Browse thread
[Caml-list] Strange physical equality behavior
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | brogoff@s... |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Strange physical equality behavior |
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Oleg Trott wrote:
> On Sunday 09 November 2003 08:33 pm, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > The functorial approach offers a much cleaner solution.
>
> I'm not convinced.
>
> With non-functorial sets:
>
> type t = Leaf of string | Node of t Set.t
>
> How would you do this with functorial sets? Perhaps like this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fa.dlqsupe.1c6ajga%40ifi.uio.no
>
> module A : sig
> type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
> val compare: t -> t -> int
> end
> = struct
> type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
> let compare t1 t2 =
> match (t1, t2) with
> (Leaf s1, Leaf s2) -> Pervasives.compare s1 s2
> | (Leaf _, Node _) -> 1
> | (Node _, Leaf _) -> -1
> | (Node n1, Node n2) -> ASet.compare n1 n2
> end
> and ASet : Set.S with type elt = A.t
> = Set.Make(A)
>
> (BTW, that example doesn't yet work in 3.07-2 default toplevel. And couldn't
> one write "let compare = Pervasives.compare" above? )
module rec A : (* a forgotten "rec" inserted *)
sig
type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
val compare: t -> t -> int
end
= struct
type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
let compare t1 t2 =
match (t1, t2) with
(Leaf s1, Leaf s2) -> Pervasives.compare s1 s2
| (Leaf _, Node _) -> 1
| (Node _, Leaf _) -> -1
| (Node n1, Node n2) -> ASet.compare n1 n2
end
and ASet : Set.S with type elt = A.t
= Set.Make(A)
It's a simple syntax error. And, if we use Pervasives.compare, we don't know
for sure how the Leaf <-> Node comparison will work, do we? What if it's
dependent on the order of occurrence of those constructors in the type
definition?
Functors can be heavy, but I prefer that approach too. Having a bit of
recursiveness in the module language makes them much nicer. Now if we can
just get generics...
-- Brian
-------------------
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