Browse thread
Smells like duck-typing
[
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: | Arnaud Spiwack <aspiwack@l...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Smells like duck-typing |
Robert Fischer a écrit : > >> You don't invent them, they exist. I can't agree to dismiss this >> suggestion without further thought. It might end up being >> non-sensical, maybe not. It merely suggests a way, to derive new >> values, whose type happen to be a supertype of the original one. Why >> not ? It may be considered to the Haskell-like "derive" feature, and >> such. It is just a way to build new values out of known one. >> > Formally, can you explain what you're looking for here, and how it's > not congruent with inheritance? > > ~~ Robert. Nope. Absolutely not :p . I wouldn't have a clue of what it should formally look like, since again I can't find any example of mathematical reasoning using that, I have no intuition at all. But it's not impossible that there is a good way to make/read such a feature, that's just what I am stating. Arnaud Spiwack