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: | 2004-06-23 (20:52) |
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