Browse thread
[Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level?
[
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: | 2004-06-24 (17:30) |
| From: | Markus Mottl <markus@o...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level? |
Andreas Rossberg schrieb am Donnerstag, den 24. Juni 2004: > To cite Bob Harper: "Equality types are stupid and should have been > dropped ages ago." > > Unfortunately, nobody seems to have a satisfying alternative either. Well, you could use type classes as in Haskell, but this would interfere with the philosophy of OCaml to have principal types for all expressions. Regards, Markus -- Markus Mottl http://www.oefai.at/~markus markus@oefai.at ------------------- 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