Re: [Caml-list] does class polymorphism need to be so complicated?

[Benjamin Geer <ben@socialtools.net>]

brogoff@speakeasy.net wrote:
> I think the burden is very slight, but I have no problem at all with using 
> functions outside of objects. Realistic implementations would provide 
> coercion functions for every base class you want to coerce to, perhaps 
> named something like "as_base_class_name". Using the exmaple you give in 
> another message, we get something like this [...]

Thanks for the example; I think I can live with the approach you 
propose. :)  I agree with you (and Scott Meyers) about functions outside 
of objects being a good thing, as long as they're doing something 
useful, and not just working around syntactical problems.  Or at least 
as long as I don't have to write a large number of them.  With the 
approach you suggest, it looks like I only need one coercion function 
per base class, which I agree isn't too burdensome:

> let as_connection o = (o : #connection :> connection);;

I'm still curious to know why the example I gave (returning a 
mysql_connection from a method that was typed to return a #connection) 
didn't compile, though ("This method has type string -> mysql_connection 
which is less general than 'a. string -> (#connection as 'a)").

Ben

-------------------
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