'a Set?
[
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:  Jon Harrop <jon@j...> 
Subject:  Re: [Camllist] 'a Set? 
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 23:54, Mike Hamburg wrote: > Is there a clean way to do this without removing the code from set.ml > and modifying it? I do not believe so. I have also had to do this. Compared to a flat set of functions, the functor approach has the advantage of enforcing a consistently used compare function. The same effect can be achieved with "elt = 'a" by writing a higherorder function which returns a record containing the Set.* functions using the given function argument as the compare function. Something equivalent to this: type 'a t = 'a list type 'a set = { empty : 'a t; is_empty : 'a t > bool; add : 'a > 'a t > 'a t; mem : 'a > 'a t > bool } let rec add compare e = function [] > [e]  h :: t > match compare h e with 1 > e :: h :: t  0 > e :: t  _ > h :: add compare e t let rec mem compare e = function [] > false  h :: t > match compare h e with 1 > false  0 > true  _ > mem compare e t let make ?(compare=compare) () = { empty = []; is_empty = (fun s > s=[]); add = add compare; mem = mem compare } Possible issues with this are that building closures (i.e. in "make") is expensive and that the resulting type is monomorphic ('_a). You can probably get a polymorphic type most easily by putting the definitions of "add" etc. in the record definition, rather than partially applying their arguments. Cheers, Jon.