From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23D2BC6B for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:54:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail5.postech.ac.kr (mail5.postech.ac.kr [141.223.1.113]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l887sN3T030092 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:54:25 +0200 Received: from [141.223.1.111] ([141.223.1.111]) by mail5.postech.ac.kr ([141.223.1.113]) with ESMTP id 2007090816:54:21:863458.30708.2572447 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:54:21 +0900 (KST) Received: from [141.223.163.177] ([141.223.163.177]) by mail1.postech.ac.kr ([141.223.1.21]) with ESMTP id 2007090816:54:21:602597.3294.130063280 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:54:21 +0900 (KST) From: "Hyeonseung Im" To: Subject: A signature that cannot be inhabited by any structures Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:54:22 +0900 Message-ID: <002d01c7f1ed$77f31130$67d93390$@ac.kr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01C7F238.E7DAB930" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acfx7XfUiwq7HMnMQQeQIj/TxxJr9g== Content-Language: ko X-TERRACE-SPAMMARK: NO (SR:13.15) (by Terrace) X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 46E2552F.000 on concorde : j-chkmail score : XX : 5/20 0 0.000 -> 2 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46E2552F.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; cav:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 sig:01 val:01 val:01 sig:01 bug:01 bug:01 sml:01 sml:01 int:01 int:01 structures:02 structures:02 ?)7/ :N:P@87N 18<:5H MIME G|=D@G 8^=CAv@T4O4Y. ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C7F238.E7DAB930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all. I found something interesting. In the OCaml, the following signature is valid. (I tested it with the OCaml version 3.09.2 and 3.10.0.) (In the top-level) # module type S = sig val x : int val x : float end;; module type S = sig val x : int val x : float end But, this module type seems not to be inhabited by any structures. On the contrary, in the SML this sort of module types cannot be defined. (Actually, it raises an error: the duplication of variables.) I wonder if this is a feature of the OCaml (or maybe a bug in the implementation). I'd appreciate any comment on it. Hyeonseung Im. ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C7F238.E7DAB930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all.

 

I found something interesting. = In the OCaml, the following signature is valid. (I tested it with the OCaml = version 3.09.2 and 3.10.0.)

 

(In the = top-level)

# module type S =3D sig val x : = int val x : float end;;

module type S =3D sig val x : = int val x : float end

 

But, this module type seems not = to be inhabited by any structures. On the contrary, in the SML this sort of = module types cannot be defined. (Actually, it raises an error: the duplication = of variables.)

 

I wonder if this is a feature of = the OCaml (or maybe a bug in the implementation).

I’d appreciate any comment on it.

 

Hyeonseung = Im.

 

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C7F238.E7DAB930--