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 TAA26136; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:30:08 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 TAA27102 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:30:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5OHU5SH016258 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:30:05 +0200 Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (markus@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i5OHU5Du030994; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:30:05 +0200 Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id i5OHU4od030993; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:30:04 +0200 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:30:04 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Andreas Rossberg Cc: "'caml-list'" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level? Message-ID: <20040624173004.GB23358@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Andreas Rossberg , 'caml-list' References: <20040624142732.9767110EF06@clark.cs.brown.edu> <40DB0587.4090403@ps.uni-sb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40DB0587.4090403@ps.uni-sb.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40DB0F9D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 rossberg:01 donnerstag:01 2004:99 stupid:01 haskell:01 interfere:01 ocaml:01 equality:01 schrieb:01 mottl:02 mottl:02 philosophy:02 classes:03 harper:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Andreas Rossberg schrieb am Donnerstag, den 24. Juni 2004: > To cite Bob Harper: "Equality types are stupid and should have been > dropped ages ago." > > Unfortunately, nobody seems to have a satisfying alternative either. Well, you could use type classes as in Haskell, but this would interfere with the philosophy of OCaml to have principal types for all expressions. Regards, Markus -- Markus Mottl http://www.oefai.at/~markus markus@oefai.at ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners