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: | 2004-06-24 (23:20) |
From: | Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...> |
Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level? |
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, John Hughes wrote: > I have one more question, though: > > 5. Why can I no longer type-annotate things I've written, so that > > let f x y z = (x = y) & (y = z) > > defines a function applicable to ALL types? I actually *liked* > being able to say something like > > let f x y z:int = (x = y) && (y = z) This annotates that f returns an int. You need to use parens to make the :int bind to z and not to f. This works: # let f x y (z:int) = (x = y) && (y = z);; val f : int -> int -> int -> bool = <fun> # This is another one of those shift-reduce conflicts that annoy me. -- "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford Brian ------------------- 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