]> > > What's best translation of the following SML type? > > datatype t = C of { f : int } > In the case of records in a module sharing field names, well, you can't do > that either, so you'll need to use classes or find some way to disambiguate > the fields. Sometimes, it's acceptable to just omit the record type: type t = C of int You lose the naming of the arguments of the constructor, but for small numbers of arguments (e.g. 1 or 2), this is often tolerable. > There are a few other conveniences in SML record handling too, like the ... > notation, that don't exist in OCaml. You mean, in pattern-matching over records? Caml offers the same functionality without the ... notation, e.g. type r = { x: int; y: int } match r with { x = 1 } -> ... Because records are declared in advance, there is no requirement that all record labels be mentioned in a pattern matching. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners