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

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-07-17 (16:12)
From: Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Troublesome nodes

Thanks for the clarification, Jacques.  So I guess my initial interpretation
of 'private' was correct.  But is 'private' also applicable when a type
is declared using a constraint?  In my Node module, for example, type 't'
is declared abstract in the signature:

type (+'a, 'b) t constraint 'a = [< super_node_t ]

In the implementation, the type is declared as follows:

type (+'a, 'b) t = 'a constraint 'a = [< super_node_t ]

Is it possible in this case to make signature equal to the implementation
except for a 'private' declaration?  (Being able to pattern-match on values
of type 't' would be very handy, that is why I would prefer to use 'private'
instead of making the type fully abstract).

Note: I am running Ocaml 3.11+dev12.  Jeremy just sent a message where
he reports that the compiler behaviour in this matter changed between
3.10 and 3.11.

Thank you for your time,
Dario Teixeira

Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!