Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications
[
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: | Robert Roessler <roessler@r...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications |
Richard Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:55:32AM -0700, Robert Roessler wrote: > >>An object certainly seems a natural and concise way to represent a >>"state-holder-with-structured-access" - and I have done just that in a >>small OCaml project... but that could be the Smalltalk and C++ in my >>background talking. :) > > > Modules actually work better for this. In a non-trolling and non-flaming way (of course), I would be interested in examples illustrating your assertion - simple or complex, real or synthetic - I am usually ready to learn. :) Robert Roessler roessler@rftp.com http://www.rftp.com