]>
There's a simple trick that Steven Weeks introduced to us and that we now
use at Jane Street for this kind of thing.
You write down a signature:
module type Abs_int : sig
type t
val to_int : t -> int
val of_int : int <- t
end
And then you write concrete module Int that implements this signature. You
can then write:
module Row : Abs_int = Int
module Col : Abs_int = Int
You can now use Row.t and Col.t as abstract types. The boilerplate is
written once, but can be used over and over. I've personally seen more
use-cases for this with strings than with ints (to separate out different
kinds of identifiers)
y
On Nov 13, 2007 6:41 PM, Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com> wrote:
> When one writes
>
> type row = int
> type col = int
>
> This allows one to use the type names "row" and "col" as synonyms of
> int. But it doesn't prevent one from using a value of type row in the
> place of a value of type col. OCaml allows us to enforce row as
> distinct from int two ways:
>
> 1) Variants:
> type row = Row of int
> type col = Col of int
>
> Downside: unnecessary boxing and tagging
> conversion from row -> int: (fun r -> match r with Row i -> i)
> conversion from int -> row: (fun i -> Row i)
>
> 2) Functors:
> module type RowCol =
> sig
> type row
> val int_of_row : row -> int
> val row_of_int : int -> row
> type col
> val int_of_col : col -> int
> val col_of_int : int -> col
> end
>
> module Main = functor (RC: RowCol) -> struct
> (* REST OF PROGRAM HERE *)
> end
>
> Any code using rows and cols could be written to take a module as a
> parameter, and because of the abstraction granted when doing so, type
> safety is ensured.
>
> Downside: functor overhead, misuse of functors, need to write
> boilerplate conversion functions
> conversion from row -> int, int -> row: provided by RowCol boilerplate
>
> IS THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE:
> Modify the type system such that one can declare
>
> type row = new int
> type col = new int
>
> Row and col would thus become distinct from int, and require explicit
> casting/coercion (2 :> row). There would be no runtime overhead for use
> of these types, only bookkeeping overhead at compilation.
>
> Downside: compiler changes (hopefully not too extensive)
> conversion from row -> int: (fun r -> (r :> int)) (* might need (r : row
> :> int) if it's not already inferred *)
> conversion from int -> row: (fun i -> (i :> row))
>
> Thoughts? Do any of you use Variants or Functors to do this now? Do
> you find this style of typing useful?
>
> E.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>