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
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-01-27 (19:39)
From: Jacques Carette <carette@m...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Re: '_a
> What about the possibility to include possible exceptions into a 
> function signature (a la java)? Does this have problems with type 
> inference? 

I would love an (optional?) way to get the type signature of my functions to
reflect their non-totalness (exceptions + anything else), as well as
reflecting their 'imperative' content [ie which state variables are used].

In fact, any such 'monadic' information that can be automatically inferred
would be really useful to have (optionally).  I guess these are known as
'types and effects' systems.