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

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2006-05-08 (21:36)
From: Dan Grossman <djg@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OO design

Phantom types are a programming idiom that can often pull off this sort 
of thing.


David Teller wrote:
> On Monday 08 May 2006 05:17, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
>>I would be tempted to say: there is no answer.
>>Ocaml objects are not about enforcing protocols, but about allowing
>>inheritance and structural subtyping, and this does not fit well with
>>your problem.
> Which brings us to a question : how do you enforce protocols in OCaml ?
> Say, is there a "good" way of rewriting file-related operations so that, say, 
> ProtocolUnix.read and ProtocolUnix.write *statically* only accept opened 
> files, and in addition, ProtocolUnix.write only accepts files which have been 
> opened with write priviledges ?
> I mean, there are manners of checking this with, say, model checking tools. In 
> the specific case of file management, I guess we can do it with a little bit 
> of simple subclassing, but I assume there's a large run-time penalty for this 
> extra bit of checking, due to the management of objects by OCaml. Has anyone 
> attempted to determine how well this scales up ? Or explored other options ?
> Cheers,
>  David
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs