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
OO programming
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Tiphaine.Turpin <Tiphaine.Turpin@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OO programming
Keiko Nakata a écrit :
> Hello,
>>> As for extension, I'm fully satisfied. But the verbosity level is 
>>> annoying for scalability...
>> Well, yes, that's always the problem with functors...
> Since there are some people (including me) 
> who are interested in using functors and recursive modules 
> in the style of object-oriented context, 
Do you mean including classes in functors, as Jacques Garrigue 
described, or using modules like classes ?

> I thought that it could be useful to devise 
> a (camlp4) syntax extension which mitigates this a bit painful verbosity.
camlp4 extensions may help. I already used some for objects (related to 
initializers), and I plan to investigate it further, possibly borrowing 
code from Jacques Garrigue. In the context of functors, the problem is 
that a lot of code would probably remain specific and still need to be 
written by hand, for example, the row types for classes...

Tiphaine Turpin
> At the moment, I have no idea which syntax is general enough and intuitive for us,
> but as far as I understand we always follow similar encodings. 
> With best regards,
> Keiko
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> Archives:
> Beginner's list:
> Bug reports: