Jon Harrop wrote:
> 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)
> 
> Only if you turned multi-argument type constructors into single-
> argument ones
> taking a tuple, i.e. type definitions like:
> 
>   type t = Bar of int * int
> 
> must become:
> 
>   type t = Bar of (int * int)

That's not the case at all - there'd be no reason not to interpret [bar] as [fun x y -> Bar(x, y)] for [Bar of int * int]. What would be hairy in camlp4 would be having to read .cmi files to deal with types defined outside your source file, but that's still not impossible...


David