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: | Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] interest in a much simpler, but modern, Caml? |
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:52:53 +0200, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * 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. Yes for instance the very concise local opening notation comes in handy here: if Int.(x = 42) then ... else ... -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr