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: | 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