>>>>> "Ville-Pertti" == Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@exomi.com> writes:

  Ville-Pertti> On May 11, 2004, at 8:13 AM, briand@aracnet.com wrote:

  >> Consider the following :
  >> 
  >> let a = {Foo.n1=1; Foo.n2=2; Foo.a=(- 1.0)} in
  >> let b = {Bar.n1=4; Bar.n2=(- 5); Bar.b=77.} in
  >> Printf.printf "%d\n" a.Foo.n1;
  >> Printf.printf "%d\n" b.Bar.n1;

  Ville-Pertti> If you want to make it slightly less verbose, you can say

  Ville-Pertti> module F = Foo
  Ville-Pertti> module B = Bar

  Ville-Pertti> Or you could use "let module ... in".

That's useful.  I need to read the chapter on language extensions more
closely.

  Ville-Pertti> Alternately, assuming the modules are your own, you
  Ville-Pertti> can name your record fields so that opening both
  Ville-Pertti> modules doesn't cause conflicts (e.g. using a short
  Ville-Pertti> prefix).

That's very kludgy, isn't it ?  I'm assuming the right way is to use
modules, which is what started this whole exercise for me.


  >> let (a:Foo.t) =  {n1=1; n2=2; a=(- 1.0)} in
  >> 
  >> Unbound record field label n1
  >> 
  >> After careful review of the grammar I discovered that is incorrect,
  >> although it seems like it should work.

  Ville-Pertti> Nothing about "a" affects the meaning of the
  Ville-Pertti> expression on the right hand side of the "=".

  Ville-Pertti> Even if it did, the visibility of identifiers is
  Ville-Pertti> determined only by lexical scope, typing has no
  Ville-Pertti> effect, which is why even if you have "a:Foo.t" in
  Ville-Pertti> scope, you can't access "a.n1".

Oh yes.  That makes makes sense.

Thanks for your help.

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