]> On Tuesday 06 October 2009 13:45:04 David Allsopp wrote: > > Is there a reason for constructors not to behave like functions? For > > instance, one cannot make a partial application from a constructor: > > This is how SML handles constructors, Xavier explained the reasons he chose > to depart from this in: > > http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2001/08/47db53a4b42529708647 >c9e81183598b.en.html > > I think it would be possible to simulate the SML behaviour in OCaml using > camlp4 (if you assume that for [type foo = Bar of int] that future unbound > references to [bar] are interpreted as [fun x -> bar x] instead of an > error) Only if you turned multi-argument type constructors into single-argument ones taking a tuple, i.e. type definitions like: type t = Bar of int * int must become: type t = Bar of (int * int) -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e