Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Abstract types in the revised syntax
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@g...>
Subject: Abstract types in the revised syntax

This message concern the few people that use the revised syntax :)

In the revised syntax, abstract types are expressed by defining them
with an unbound type variable:

(* Original *)
type t;;

(* Revised *)
type t = 'a;

The motivation is that looks like an existential type, which is a way
of seeing abstract types.

However I found this motivation misapplied since it doesn't look like
an existential type, there is no exists keyword?!? (type t = exists
'a. 'a;)

It's like a hot-dog without sausage?!?

In fact, consequences of that choice are worst. If forces the
parser/printer to do some semantical operation to convert back and
forth between syntaxes.

type t 'a = 'a; (* not abstract *)

type t 'a = 'b; (* abstract *)

It was considered acceptable, since the test for the freeness of a
single type variable seemed simple because very local.

Indeed only the list of parameters was consulted to compute the
freeness of the type variable.

It seems very weak since highly dependent of future evolution of the language.

Nowadays it's no longer sufficient. Constraints can be added with a
type declaration to constrain the type of parameters.

type c 'a = 'b
   constraint 'a = < b : 'b; .. >;
(* Thanks to Till Varoquaux for it's bug report. *)

Clearly I don't want to push that wrong choice further by making more
semantic analysis in the parser/printer.

So I revert back to << type t; >> for abstract types.

Now, what's the new representation for abstract types. OCaml use a
option type, where None represent the abstract type. We can't afford
that, since we want a concrete syntax for everything.
However we have a nil type that can be used as a default case (for
lists of types or optional types).

<:sig_item< type t >> === <:sig_item< type t = $ <:ctyp<>> $ >>

Not that this will also concern abstract module types.

Alas, this will affect existing code using the revised syntax, but
will be easily caught at compilation.

>From a pragmatic point of view, a grep to show the usage of such types:
grep -E "^[ \t]*type.*=[ \t]*'[^ \t]*[ \t]*;[ \t]*$" **/*.ml*

Feel free to share your mind on that subject. The change is not yet
applied to the CVS.

Best regards,

Nicolas Pouillard