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 WAA30116; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:35:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA30093 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:35:10 +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 UAA28222 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:25:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hebe.or.intel.com (jffdns02.or.intel.com [134.134.248.4]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f6GIPMT08771 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:25:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ichips-ra.pdx.intel.com (ichips-ra-hme8.intel.com [10.7.13.35]) by hebe.or.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.41 2001/07/09 21:06:22 root Exp $) with ESMTP id SAA28221; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:25:03 GMT Received: from dhpc0010.pdx.intel.com (dhpc0010.pdx.intel.com [10.7.21.33]) by ichips-ra.pdx.intel.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1/d: internal.m4,v 1.2 1998/11/09 19:18:37 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA06942; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ichips.intel.com (johnh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhpc0010.pdx.intel.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1/d: client-ra.m4,v 1.1 1998/12/24 19:00:55 jamesw Exp jamesw $) with ESMTP id LAA09375; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200107161825.LAA09375@dhpc0010.pdx.intel.com> To: Markus Mottl cc: caml-list@inria.fr, John Harrison Subject: RE: "Re: [Caml-list] A G'Caml question" + additional info Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:24:52 -0700 From: John R Harrison Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Markus Mottl writes: | This is a shortcoming of the standard library that there are no | polymorphic implementations of "Set" and similar. It's very easy to | extract a polymorphic (module-) version from the existing code. I strongly agree with this point. From recent messages it seems that I'm just one of a whole army of O'Caml users who've essentially cut-and-pasted code out of the standard set library with a fixed polymorphic comparison function inserted. For a polymorphic language to make dealing with polymorphic sets so awkward seems ridiculous. Perhaps the justification for the decision to include orderings in the standard interface is that the default equality and orderings may not behave as desired on arbitrary types, e.g. non-canonical abstract data types like other sets. However, a better solution might be to make equality on abstract types settable (see an earlier thread I started on this topic). Will G'Caml be any help in this respect? That is, will it allow one to "overload" equality on particular types? John. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr