]> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:21:26 +0900 Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote: > > > > type point = int * int * _ ;; > > > > where the underscore stands for any sequences of types. Colour, > > taste, strangeness, etc. ... > > This looks very much like an ocaml object type to me... > Is the absence of labels for fields important? Nor, it is not. The labels are not at all important. The same scheme will work for open/extensible records. (In fact, those are the records which are extensible in Oberon.) I have just run once the "ocamlc" compiler with the "-dlambda" option, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to components of a type is coded to something as simple as: (field 0 param/57) (field 1 param/57) and so on. But this means that any function which works with "point"-s (from my previous message) will work work correctly "color_point"-s, if it were allowed to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the objects have a higher overhead. Besides -- I'm subjective, of course -- this scheme has some kind of "math appeal" to me. I know that there is and will always be a tradeoff between expressiveness of a language and its complexity, so don't take that proposal, for more than it is. Just a few thoughts. Vasile Rotaru -- It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that there were too many prehistoric toads in it. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar" ------------------- 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