From: Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] a reckless proposal
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:08:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010724110817.A35216@caddr.com> (raw)
It seems that two of the things that most confuse or frustrate new users of
ocaml are records and objects. Records are confusing because they resemble C
structs and are used in similar ways, but are really quite different. Objects
are confusing because their use is mildly discouraged and because their
functionality significantly overlaps that of the module system.
The most frustrating feature of records, of course, is that each record field
name must be globally unique. Objects seem to provide more struct-like
semantics, i.e. field names need only be unique within their class definition.
Using objects in place of records is a bit clumsy, however, because object
fields require accessors. If the rules for object field access were changed,
however, objects would be just as convenient as records and less confusing and
more comfortable to C/C++/Java/Python programmers. For example, if object
fields were directly accessible by default, one could use:
class point =
object
val x = 0
val y = 0
end
and access p.x and p.y directly, which would be in almost all ways preferrable
to using a record type which would make it impossible to define another type
with fields named x or y.
Alternatively, ocaml could offer ruby-style accessor macros, where a definition
like:
class example =
object
attr_rw x = 0
attr_r y = 0
attr z = 0
end
would automatically generate get_x and set_x methods for x, a get_y method for
y, and no methods for z. I suppose you could implement this in camlp4, but I
think features like this would have to be included in core ocaml before they'd
really be used. Records could even be deprecated if this were implemented.
This approach has, in my mind, two advantages:
1. The object system becomes more generally useful.
2. A confusing and non-orthogonal feature of ocaml is subsumed into
another, more generally useful and flexible feature.
--
miles
"We in the past evade X, where X is something which we believe to be a
lion, through the act of running." - swiftrain@geocities.com
-------------------
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
next reply other threads:[~2001-07-24 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-07-24 18:08 Miles Egan [this message]
2001-07-24 19:44 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-07-24 21:02 ` Miles Egan
2001-07-25 15:15 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-07-26 15:27 ` Miles Egan
2001-07-26 15:47 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-07-26 16:01 ` Miles Egan
2001-07-26 21:19 ` John Max Skaller
2001-07-24 20:26 ` Sven
2001-07-24 20:51 ` Miles Egan
2001-07-25 8:30 ` FabienFleutot
2001-07-25 9:30 Dave Berry
2001-07-26 15:35 ` Miles Egan
2001-07-30 12:21 ` Bruce Hoult
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010724110817.A35216@caddr.com \
--to=miles@caddr.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox