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: | Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Smells like duck-typing |
Hi,
> Why not have different object types for each of the story types? e.g.
Yes, other people have suggested the same, and while not a perfect
solution (because of the reduplication of fields), the object subtyping
feature of OCaml (the bit that smells a lot like duck-typing...)
is powerful enough to avoid the code duplication in functions such
as print_metadata. More important, it avoids the ugly hackery with
option types.
> If on the other hand you wanted to ditch objects entirely, you could
> do a similar thing using modules and functors. E.g.:
That is actually an interesting approach. If I'm not mistaken, the
semantics for the parameter to a functor is "a module whose signature
contains at least this", which is again similar to duck-typing...
Cheers,
Dario
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/