Browse thread
interest in a much simpler, but modern, Caml?
[
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: | Florian Weimer <fw@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] interest in a much simpler, but modern, Caml? |
* Jeremy Bem: > Yes and no, respectively. In other words, nothing new here. Oh. I just happen to think that those two are very high on the list of things you want to fix once you can start with a clean slate. > Is there a better approach to polymorphic equality floating around? Besides type classes? I'm not sure. It's probably possible to remove this feature from the language, with a little bit of syntactic overhead to pass around a matching comparison function.