* Re: [Caml-list] An extended comparative study of language support for generic programming
2010-02-11 0:06 An extended comparative study of language support for generic programming Jon Harrop
@ 2010-02-10 23:00 ` Raoul Duke
2010-02-11 1:31 ` Jon Harrop
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Raoul Duke @ 2010-02-10 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.122&rep=rep1&type=pdf
:-)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.functional/browse_thread/thread/d654fedd6efdf753/3ee82770d5e79402#3ee82770d5e79402
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* An extended comparative study of language support for generic programming
@ 2010-02-11 0:06 Jon Harrop
2010-02-10 23:00 ` [Caml-list] " Raoul Duke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jon Harrop @ 2010-02-11 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
Anyone studied this paper by Garcia et al.:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.122&rep=rep1&type=pdf
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] An extended comparative study of language support for generic programming
2010-02-10 23:00 ` [Caml-list] " Raoul Duke
@ 2010-02-11 1:31 ` Jon Harrop
2010-02-11 2:10 ` Peng Zang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jon Harrop @ 2010-02-11 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 23:00:44 Raoul Duke wrote:
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.122&rep=rep1
> >&type=pdf
> >
> :-)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.functional/browse_thread/thread/d6
>54fedd6efdf753/3ee82770d5e79402#3ee82770d5e79402
See my response there:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.functional/msg/2cb15a6281087b04
:-)
I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with this work and/or had anything
to say about their OCaml solutions and discussion?
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] An extended comparative study of language support for generic programming
2010-02-11 1:31 ` Jon Harrop
@ 2010-02-11 2:10 ` Peng Zang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peng Zang @ 2010-02-11 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list; +Cc: Jon Harrop
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Just read the relevant OCaml section, and I see two things that seem strange:
1) From my understanding, the paper appears to say that OCaml has cannot
constrain a function parameter with more than one concept, which is untrue.
Eg.
# class type foo = object method foo : unit end;;
# class type bar = object method bar : unit end;;
# let f ((x:#foo):#bar) = x;;
val f : (< bar : unit; foo : unit; .. > as 'a) -> 'a = <fun>
2) It also says that constraints specified on type parameters may not
determine the actual type. They provide example:
class type conceptA = object
method fn1 : int
end
let algo (x : #conceptA) : int = x#fn2 + 1
And point out the type of parameter x is not just #conceptA, it also has
method fn2. This is true. But although confusing to new users, is hardly
limiting. You can use a sig [A] to ensure the parameter type is correct
(that's what sigs do after all), or you can simple use the close type and
then the open [B].
[A]
include
(struct
let algo (x : #conceptA) : int = x#fn2 + 1
end:sig
val algo : #conceptA -> int
end);;
[B]
let algo (x : conceptA) : int = x#fn1 + 1;;
let algo (x : #conceptA) : int = algo (x:>conceptA);;
Peng
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 08:31:00 pm Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 February 2010 23:00:44 Raoul Duke wrote:
> > > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.122&rep=re
> > >p1 &type=pdf
> > >
> > :-)
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.functional/browse_thread/thread/
> >d6 54fedd6efdf753/3ee82770d5e79402#3ee82770d5e79402
>
> See my response there:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.functional/msg/2cb15a6281087b04
>
> :-)
>
> I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with this work and/or had
> anything to say about their OCaml solutions and discussion?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLc2cQfIRcEFL/JewRAtBaAJ4maHkhrk0oYyDGekgTPkugIb8v1gCbBwg0
QxCm3QBqUR1vrPDB1+aM9bA=
=cQ8r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-11 2:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-11 0:06 An extended comparative study of language support for generic programming Jon Harrop
2010-02-10 23:00 ` [Caml-list] " Raoul Duke
2010-02-11 1:31 ` Jon Harrop
2010-02-11 2:10 ` Peng Zang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox