Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:46:13 +0200
From: Sven LUTHER <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>,
Subject: Re: forward function definitions
In-Reply-To: <199906162055.WAA22149@pauillac.inria.fr>; from Pierre Weis on Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 10:55:31PM +0200
On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 10:55:31PM +0200, Pierre Weis wrote:
> > Ah, but you can define a wrapper immediately following the definition of the forwarder function :
> > let f for () = ...
> > ...
> > let for ... = ...
> > let true_f = f for
> > Friendly,
> > Sven LUTHER
> Yes you can do so, but you once again get the same polymorphism
> 1) If for is used polymorphically in the body of f you're dead.
> 2) true_f will be monomorphic as well, unless you eta-expand it as in:
> let true_f () = f for ()
Ok, true, but it solves the lisibility problem.
I have a similar problem :
i am intenting to write a little function, using the mlgtk gtk+ bindings, that
will popup a dialog window and ask the user for a string. The dialog window
will activate a callback when i type enter in the entry widget.
here is what i plan to do :
let todo = ref None
let activate entrywidget =
let s = (* stuff to get the string in the entry widget *)
in match !todo with
| None -> raise Error
| Some f -> f s
let get_string f = match !todo with
| Some f' -> ()
| None ->
let () = todo := Some f
in (* stuff to open the dialog box,
* and connect the activate handler to it
is this the best way to do things like that, what other possibilities are there
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:23 MET