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: | 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