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: | -- (:) |
| 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