Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Re: OCAML Downcasting?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-09-22 (18:32)
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCAML Downcasting?
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:

> It makes a difference because specifying them at the type definition
> would introduce a dependency loop between modules. And it would be
> unmodular: it would require changing some base module whenever a far
> client module is added.
> Apply this reasoning to the exn type. Why don't you define all exn
> constructors in one place?

Ignoring the fact that exceptions are built into the language, I'd read
section 4.2 "Polymorphic Variants" of the Ocaml language manual for how to
get around this.

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: