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: skaller <skaller@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level?
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 06:21, skaller wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 02:28, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> 
> > However, a stamp based semantics is a purely operational approach and 
> > has no proper explanation in type theory. 
> 
> What has scoping got to do with it though?
> 
> In Felix there is a quirk where you can do this:
> 
> fun f():(1->t) * (t->0) = {
>   type t = "int"; 
>   fun a():t={ return 1; }
>   fun b(x:t):0={ print_int x; }
> }

Woops .. i didn't mean to post this to caml list,
and there is a bug too .. forgot to return the nested
functions :)


-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net



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