Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@p...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level?
John Hughes wrote:
> 
> 1. Why no eqtypes? The idea of having the type-checker verify that you
> weren't doing equality testing on non-equality-testable types seemed 
> like GOOD thing in SML, and I was surprised to see it gone. 

To cite Bob Harper: "Equality types are stupid and should have been 
dropped ages ago."

Unfortunately, nobody seems to have a satisfying alternative either.

	- Andreas

-- 
Andreas Rossberg, rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de

Let's get rid of those possible thingies!  -- TB

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