[
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: | 2009-04-06 (03:41) |
From: | Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@m...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Instance variables can't be polymorphic? |
From: Zheng Li <zheng_li@users.sourceforge.net> > Here is an example: > > ---- > # class c = object > val iter = List.iter > end;; > class c : object val iter : ('a -> unit) -> 'a list -> unit end > ---- > > Since iter is a instance variable, the type parameter 'a won't be > required to parameterize the type of the class, perfect! > > But it's still not polymorphic. > > ---- > # let o = object > inherit c > method do_sth = iter print_int []; iter print_string [] > end;; > Characters 69-81: > method do_sth = iter print_int []; iter print_string [] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Error: This expression has type string -> unit but is here used with type > int -> unit > ---- > > Is that reasonable? The inference of class c is done before the > declaration of object o, and the type signature says it's polymorphic > (not a weak one '_a). Actually it's polymorphic, but only at the level of inheritance. You could define two objects inheriting from c, one using print_int, and the other print_string, and this would work. Due to functional update (i.e. {< iter = ... >}), object-level polymorphism would have to be explicit, but as you pointed next, no syntax is provided for explicitly polymorphic fields. > Trying to declare the polymorphism explicitly as > > -- > val iter : 'a. ('a -> unit) -> 'a list -> unit = List.iter > -- > > won't work. This syntax is only allowed for methods. Yes. It would be too difficult to add such a functionality, but what kind of application do you have in mind? > Given that I really want to use polymorphic functions this way: as > instance variable and accessible through inheritance, is there any > workaround or suggestions ? The simplest way I see currently is to use a let defined field (i.e., before the object keyword, but then you can't access it after inheritance), or to use a private method. What is your problem with a private method? It should be more flexible. Of course you can also define a record to wrap your polymorphic value. Jacques Garrigue