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 (12:01) |
From: | Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@p...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level? |
skaller wrote: > >>Note that you cannot return values such that the module name escapes >>its scope. > > Which escapes me. Felix allows types to be defined > anywhere and also allows them to escape, it creates > no problem I'm aware of (except that you can't > name them without resorting to the typeof() operator). I believe the presence of syntactic names for all generative types is essential for the theoretical underpinnings of OCaml's type and module system. > Topic ---------------------Language X ------------ Language Y > Intermodule fun calls Yes No > Intermodule type recursion Yes No > Nest everything (excl funcs) Yes No > Nest funcs No Yes > Full sep compil Yes No > Platform indep code No Yes How did you arrive at that table? AFAICS, the right column contains too many No entries (intermodule function calls, full sep compilation), while the left contains too many Yes entries (nest everything, or rather compositionality is definitely not given for C/C++, full sep compilation neither - considering that you have to manually share some code in header files). -- 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