[
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] Troublesome nodes |
Hi,
Thanks for the clarification, Jacques. So I guess my initial interpretation
of 'private' was correct. But is 'private' also applicable when a type
is declared using a constraint? In my Node module, for example, type 't'
is declared abstract in the signature:
type (+'a, 'b) t constraint 'a = [< super_node_t ]
In the implementation, the type is declared as follows:
type (+'a, 'b) t = 'a constraint 'a = [< super_node_t ]
Is it possible in this case to make signature equal to the implementation
except for a 'private' declaration? (Being able to pattern-match on values
of type 't' would be very handy, that is why I would prefer to use 'private'
instead of making the type fully abstract).
Note: I am running Ocaml 3.11+dev12. Jeremy just sent a message where
he reports that the compiler behaviour in this matter changed between
3.10 and 3.11.
Thank you for your time,
Dario Teixeira
__________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html