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 QAA31931 for caml-red; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:31:51 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA00175 for <weis@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:09:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from dynabook.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (DHCP12-11.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.13.41])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e65N9l503017;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:09:47 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1])
	by dynabook.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 139yIc-0000pw-00; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:09:46 -0400
To: Pierre.Weis@inria.fr
Cc: sumii@saul.cis.upenn.edu, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: polymorphic equality and overloading
In-Reply-To: <200007052215.AAA29234@pauillac.inria.fr>
References: <20000705173047X.sumii@saul.cis.upenn.edu>
	<200007052215.AAA29234@pauillac.inria.fr>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.1 on Emacs 19.34 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20000705190946V.sumii@saul.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:09:46 -0400
From: Eijiro Sumii <sumii@saul.cis.upenn.edu>
X-Dispatcher: imput version 991025(IM133)
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

Dear Dr. Pierre Weis,

> No. As you know (and as I wrote in the Caml FAQ) the polymorphic
> equality in Caml is the "equality in mathematics" for many (or most?)
> datatypes. A few exceptions are (as in maths)
> -- functions, for which mathematical equality needs complex demonstrations
> -- quotient types using complex equivalence relations, such as
> rational numbers or even reals or complex numbers.

Are the exceptions really "a few"?  For example---apart from (some
representations of) mathematical entities such as rational numbers,
complex numbers, polynomials, etc.---simple database entries like
"type student = { id : int; name : string; address : string }" would
have an equality different from the polymorphic equality (in the Set
and Map modules, for instance).

> Note also that polymorphic equality is just pratical and useful,

That is exactly what I asked in my second message ("Is that just
because it is often useful?"), and if the answer is yes, that's ok for
me.

> and not confusing at all if you know something about mathematical
> entities involved in the values manipulated by Caml programs.

Unfortunately, the different treatments of equality and addition (for
example) *did* confuse a friend of mine.  (He has a master's degree in
computer science in the University of Tokyo---as I also do---and
definitely knows much about mathematics and computer science.)

> Choosing Haskell for the treatment of equality in the language is just
(snip)
> All the best for your experiments with modern programming languages

Oh, I *love* OCaml.:-) As I wrote in a previous message, I'm not a
Haskell advocator.  (By the way, I've been programming in "modern"
languages---such as Scheme, Standard ML, Caml and Haskell---for 5
years, or 15 years if you admit LOGO as a modern language.)

Best wishes,

// Eijiro Sumii <sumii@saul.cis.upenn.edu>
//
// currently visiting: Department of Computer and Information Science,
// School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania