Browse thread
[Caml-list] [ANN] The Missing Library
-
John Goerzen
-
Kenneth Knowles
- Alexander V. Voinov
-
John Goerzen
-
Maxence Guesdon
-
John Goerzen
- Maxence Guesdon
-
John Goerzen
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
John Goerzen
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
- Gerd Stolpmann
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Jacques GARRIGUE
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- Jacques GARRIGUE
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- Nicolas Cannasse
-
Jacques GARRIGUE
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- oliver@f...
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
John Goerzen
- Henri DF
- Shawn Wagner
- james woodyatt
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
- Basile STARYNKEVITCH
-
John Goerzen
- Kenneth Knowles
- Florian Hars
-
Maxence Guesdon
- Eric C. Cooper
-
Kenneth Knowles
[
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: | 2004-04-28 (06:53) |
From: | Jacques GARRIGUE <garrigue@k...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure |
From: "Nicolas Cannasse" <warplayer@free.fr> > > This also emphasizes one of the advantages of objects: since their > > types can be compared for equality, several libraries can use the same > > type without requiring a common header (that is, if everybody agrees > > on the interface, as you suggest). > > Is there any chance of getting the same behavior with records ? > Records are currently module-bounded, if Ocaml was enabling structural > comparison (even without subtyping) it would be very useful. With the current records? There are some obstacles, like the fact records allow polymorphic recursion, makeing impossible to check structural equality. Or the fact that the order of members is relevant, meaning that you would only get a weak equality anyway. New polymorphic records? I would rather try to make objects easier to use, as they are certainly more powerful. All the current discussion on IO suggests that you cannot only define one minimal interface, but actually need a hierarchy of interfaces. Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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