From: Didier Remy <Didier.Remy@inria.fr>
To: Alain Frisch <frisch@clipper.ens.fr>
Cc: Jeff Henrikson <jehenrik@yahoo.com>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] record labels of record scope using camlp4
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:06:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020117190611.A25214@morgon.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0201141242570.12723-100000@clipper.ens.fr>; from frisch@clipper.ens.fr on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:15:04PM +0100
> Another way would be to use type information provided by the type-checker.
> For accessing field, here is a description of a simple patch to the
> type-checker that could be handy; the idea is that, when the expression e
> is known to be a record of a given type, one can use a "record scope" rule
> for label.
Isn't this just a form of static and local resolution of overloading?
However, local resolution does not commute with unification...
Hence, the specification of well-typed programs should then strongly
depend on the order in which unifications (i.e. type inference) are
performed. Do you have a specification of well-typed programs but
the type-inference algorithm itself?
> A ten-minutes hack leads me to:
[...]
> This patch allows to write things like:
>
> type t = { x : int; y : int };;
> type s = { x : string };;
> let f (t : t) : int = t.x;;
>
> The same could be done for record expression (in function type_expect):
>
> let r : t = { x = 2; y = 3 } in
> ...
> On the one hand, this kind of interaction with the type-checker is quite
> dangerous as it breaks complete type inference, but in OCaml, there are
> already some cases where type annotations are mandatory; on the other
> hand, it leads to a lightweight syntax and is probably what programmers
> expect.
It is true that Ocaml differs from the nice theory of core ML in a few
places. However, we have tried to keep those differences as unsignificant
as possible, and as few as possible.
For example, a module with a weak type variable in its principal signature
is rejected, while any ground instantiation of this weak type variable would
be accepted, so, yes: ``Ocaml does not have principal types''. However, type
inference is still easy to specify, and in particular does not rely in which
operations are performed.
Didier
-------------------
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 prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-17 18:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-14 7:28 Jeff Henrikson
2002-01-14 10:01 ` Daniel de Rauglaudre
2002-01-14 12:15 ` Alain Frisch
2002-01-17 18:06 ` Didier Remy [this message]
2002-01-17 19:58 ` Alain Frisch
2002-01-18 6:58 ` Jacques Garrigue
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=20020117190611.A25214@morgon.inria.fr \
--to=didier.remy@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=frisch@clipper.ens.fr \
--cc=jehenrik@yahoo.com \
/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