]> Hello, I was thinking of some way to define record types with "the same fields plus some others": (** point2.mli **) type point2 = { x : float; y : float } (** point3.ml **) type point3 = { include Point2.point2; z : float } (* which would be exactly equivalent as writing *) type point3 = { x : float; y : float; z : float } Some disavantadges: - same field labels but no subtyping (and all the usual problems that we don't have with classes and objects) Some advantages: - can be used where objects cannot (input/output_value are possible) - makes some type definitions more clear My initial problem is to input/output objects with a minimum of efforts. If we have one module for each class, with some hand-written conversion from/to record types, maybe it would be convenient to have a such a pseudo-inheritance system for record types. Any experience with this kind of problem? Unless Marshal becomes available for objects?... -- Martin ------------------- 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