From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA05763; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:52:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA06466 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:52:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5NKqXSH019290 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:52:35 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp215-31.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [203.122.215.31]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5NKqUHY086444; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:22:32 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Andreas Rossberg Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <1088022094.1941.84.camel@pelican.wigram> References: <20040622224125.GA24785@redhat.com> <20040622225321.GB31368@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <1087947151.29427.82.camel@pelican.wigram> <40D97122.8000909@ps.uni-sb.de> <1088001930.1941.31.camel@pelican.wigram> <40D9AFAF.3040405@ps.uni-sb.de> <1088022094.1941.84.camel@pelican.wigram> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1088023950.1941.98.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 24 Jun 2004 06:52:30 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40D9ED91.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 2004:99 rossberg:01 bug:01 9660:01 glebe:01 semantics:01 caml:01 int:01 int:01 nsw:01 snail:02 purely:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 06:21, skaller wrote: > On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 02:28, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > > > However, a stamp based semantics is a purely operational approach and > > has no proper explanation in type theory. > > What has scoping got to do with it though? > > In Felix there is a quirk where you can do this: > > fun f():(1->t) * (t->0) = { > type t = "int"; > fun a():t={ return 1; } > fun b(x:t):0={ print_int x; } > } Woops .. i didn't mean to post this to caml list, and there is a bug too .. forgot to return the nested functions :) -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners