English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] [ANN] The Missing Library
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-04-28 (06:53)
From: Jacques GARRIGUE <garrigue@k...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure
From: "Nicolas Cannasse" <warplayer@free.fr>

> > This also emphasizes one of the advantages of objects: since their
> > types can be compared for equality, several libraries can use the same
> > type without requiring a common header (that is, if everybody agrees
> > on the interface, as you suggest).
> Is there any chance of getting the same behavior with records ?
> Records are currently module-bounded, if Ocaml was enabling structural
> comparison (even without subtyping) it would be very useful.

With the current records?
There are some obstacles, like the fact records allow polymorphic
recursion, makeing impossible to check structural equality.
Or the fact that the order of members is relevant, meaning that you
would only get a weak equality anyway.

New polymorphic records?
I would rather try to make objects easier to use, as they are
certainly more powerful. All the current discussion on IO suggests
that you cannot only define one minimal interface, but actually need a
hierarchy of interfaces.

Jacques Garrigue

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