From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA03028 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:32:15 +0200 (MET DST)
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 LAA02706 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:28:36 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from morgon.inria.fr (morgon.inria.fr [128.93.8.33])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29388;
	Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:28:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from remy@localhost)
	by morgon.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02487;
	Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:33:30 +0200
Message-ID: <19990412103328.05240@morgon.inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:33:28 +0200
From: Didier Remy <remy@morgon.inria.fr>
To: Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
Cc: OCAML <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: creating fresh objects of type 'self
Reply-To: Didier.Remy@inria.fr
References: <199904092156.XAA27233@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.85e
In-Reply-To: <199904092156.XAA27233@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>; from Markus Mottl on Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 11:56:44PM +0100
Organization: INRIA, BP 105, F-78153 Le Chesnay Cedex
Phone: (33) 1 3963 5317 -- Sec: (33) 1 3963 5570 -- Fax: (33) 1 3963 5684
Web: http://cristal.inria.fr/~remy
Sender: weis

> is there a convenient way of creating objects of type 'self in classes?
> 
> Cloning is easy, e.g:
> 
>   class foo = object
>     method clone = {< >}
>   end
> 
> which yields an object not necessarily of type "foo" but possibly of
> a subclass.

Yes.

> But I wonder, how I can do something similar to get a "fresh" object.

The method clone already gives you a fresh copy of the original object.  So
why aren't you happy with the method clone?

> I would like to be able to have something like:
> 
>   class foo = object (_ : 'self)
>     method create = new 'self
>   end
> 
> The only possibility I know to get the intended result is rather
> inconvenient: I do as in "clone", but reinitialize all member data with
> their initial data. This is not only error-prone, but possibly quite a
> lot of work.

I don't understand what you mean here. 

> The original idea is to have a parent *object* passing "self" to a child
> *object* it has just created itself (note that I mean concrete objects,
> not classes).

I still don't undertand what you really want to do. 

Best regards,

    Didier.