Archives of the Caml mailing list > Message from Jim Farrand

Browse thread

Constructors are not functions

Chantal KELLER
- Philippe Wang
  - Jon Harrop
    - Richard Jones
    - blue storm
- David Allsopp
  - David Allsopp
  - Jim Farrand
    - Michel Mauny
  - Jon Harrop
    - David Allsopp
- Gerd Stolpmann
- Jérémie Dimino
  - blue storm

Date:	-- (:)
From:	Jim Farrand <jim.farrand@g...>
Subject:	Re: [Caml-list] Constructors are not functions

David Allsopp wrote:

> I think it would be possible to simulate the SML behaviour in OCaml using camlp4 (if you assume that for [type foo = Bar of int] that future unbound references to [bar] are interpreted as [fun x -> bar x] instead of an error)

I believe this is already the behaviour under the revised syntax, so 
this is definitely possible.

Regards,
Jim

-- 
Jim Farrand
E-Mail/Jabber/Google-Talk/MSN: jim.farrand@gmail.com
Phone number changed Jun 2009: Now ends 996 (Ask for the rest, delete 
the old one!)