Re: monomorphism is ... ?

From: Pierre Weis (Pierre.Weis@inria.fr)
Date: Thu Jan 21 1999 - 16:32:00 MET

Next message: Toby Moth: "Re: Constructed types"
Previous message: Toby Moth: "monomorphism is ... ?"
In reply to: Toby Moth: "monomorphism is ... ?"
Next in thread: Simon Helsen: "Re: monomorphism is ... ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <199901211532.QAA18132@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: monomorphism is ... ?
To: tm1@cise.npl.co.uk (Toby Moth)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:32:00 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <199901211150.LAA06705@squall.cise.npl.co.uk> from "Toby Moth" at Jan 21, 99 11:50:29 am

> Am I right in thinking that the following holds ?
>
> polymorphic = has type 'a = for all
> monomorphic = has type '_a = exists
>
> Here '=' stands for 'equal in spirit'.
>
>
> Toby Moth

Yes you are 'right in spirit': more precisely '_a means an unknown
type, that should be precised by further constraints or computations
(as are unknowns in math). There is no quantifier in a type with '_a,
as opposed to existential types (type scheme with existential
quantifier in fact).

Pierre Weis

INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://cristal.inria.fr/~weis/

Next message: Toby Moth: "Re: Constructed types"
Previous message: Toby Moth: "monomorphism is ... ?"
In reply to: Toby Moth: "monomorphism is ... ?"
Next in thread: Simon Helsen: "Re: monomorphism is ... ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:18 MET