Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Private types
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Edgar Friendly <thelema314@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Private types
David Allsopp wrote:

> Without the full coercion for x you'll get a type error because the type
> checker infers that the type of the [if] expression is [t] from the [then]
> branch and then fails to unify [> `B of int ] with [t] unless the type of
> [x] is first coerced to [> t ]. If the compiler were to try (x : t : [> t ])
> in all those instances I think that would render polymorphic variants pretty
> unusable ... the type checker needs to know that you meant to do that or
> everything will unify!
> 
Okay, you claim we shouldn't automatically open polymorphic variants.  I
don't see why auto->ing polymorphic types is really a problem.  If the
later code (receiving the returned value) can't handle the [> ] type,
that type error will stop things (although it won't point out where the
[> ] came from).  This seems one case where the compiler can easily DWIM
the correct result.

>> Would it be particularly difficult to, in the cases where type [x] is
>> found but type [y] is expected, to try a (foo : x :> y) cast?
> 
> +1! With reference my previous comment that "the type checker needs to know
> if you meant that", there's still the option of using fully abstract types
> if you wanted to avoid this kind of automatic coercion and have, say,
> positive integers totally distinct from all integers without an explicit
> cast.
> 
Actually, I do see the use of two kinds of derived types:
type positive = private int ( auto-coerced to int )
type category_id = new int (not auto-coerced to int - math not allowed)

I assume there's some efficiency benefit to exposing the underlying type
of category_id, if not then abstract types will quite suffice.

> All said, I do see Jacques point of wanting to keep coercion and type
> inference totally separate... though perhaps if coercions were only tried
> during unification if at least one of the types in question is private that
> would maintain a certain level of predictability about when they're used
> automatically?
> 
> 
> David
> 
I'm happy moving down this slope of the compiler doing more of the work.
 Hopefully it's slippery, so it'll end up doing lots of work for me.

E.