On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 22:08, Martin Berger wrote:
> > The result is, in my opinion, the best CS library
> > EVER built. Its just a pity the C++ language doesn't
> > have what it takes to drive it (lexical scoping 
> > like ML has).
> 
> i agree with this. what i wonder is: why not do the STL for
> ocaml? of course ocaml's typing system is not (yet) up
> expressive enough to express/enforce all relevant concepts,
> and may never be, but so what? neither is c++, but the
> STL is highly successful.

ExtLib (the sf one at ocaml-lib.sf.net) does have some
STL like concepts. See below for more comments ..

> maybe this text is of interest:
> 
> http://www.osl.iu.edu/publications/pubs/2003/comparing_generic_programming03.pdf

Yeah, I've read that. There is some interesting
analysis, but the basis is flawed. The authors approached
the subject with a pre-conceived idea, that happens
to be invalid. 

They're basically hooked on 'generic' meaning
what templates do: bind in a macro like manner
by name. This isn't proper polymorphism.

It *is* what provides the functorially polymorphic
behaviour. Aka 'polyadic'. But there are better ways.

Err .. guests arriving .. more later :D

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net



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