From: Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org>
To: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Constraints get ignored in methods
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:01:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49D2A0AF.1080300@ens-lyon.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ab71ic1f.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to keep a linked list of structures that have a common subset
> of functionality. I thought this would be a good use of ocaml objects.
It is not a good use of objects. You'll notice this pretty soon as you'll run
into a variety of problems:
- polymorphism
- initialization
- verbosity
- performance
All of these issues are inexistent if you use records instead of objects for
the list structure (or just a classic list).
You can still use objects as elements of the list, but the elements would have
to share the base type, as you know.
(continued below)
> A base class with the common subset of functionality and methods to
> link them. And then derived classes for the specific types. Most
> simplified it looks like this:
>
> # class type base_type = object val mutable next : base_type option method set_next : base_type option -> unit end;;
> class type base_type =
> object
> val mutable next : base_type option
> method set_next : base_type option -> unit
> end
>
> # class base : base_type = object val mutable next = None method set_next n = next <- n end;;
> class base : base_type
>
> # class foo = object inherit base method foo = () end;;
> class foo :
> object
> val mutable next : base_type option
> method foo : unit
> method set_next : base_type option -> unit
> end
>
> # let a = new base in
> let b = new foo in
> a#set_next (Some (b :> base_type));;
> - : unit = ()
>
> # let a = new base in
> let b = new foo in
> a#set_next (Some b);;
> ^
> Error: This expression has type foo but is here used with type base_type
> The second object type has no method foo
>
> This last error isn't nice. I don't want to have to cast the objects
> all the time. So I thought there must be a better way using
> polymorphic methods with a constraint. But here is where everything
> breaks down. First lets look at just the set_next method:
>
> # class type virtual vbase_type = object method virtual set_next : 'a. 'a option -> unit constraint 'a = #vbase_type end;;
> class type virtual vbase_type =
> object method virtual set_next : 'a option -> unit end
>
> # class virtual vbase : vbase_type = object method virtual set_next : 'a. 'a option -> unit constraint 'a = #vbase_type end;;
> class virtual vbase : vbase_type
>
> # class base = object inherit vbase method set_next _ = () end;;
> class base : object method set_next : 'a option -> unit end
>
> # let b = new base;;
> val b : base = <obj>
>
> # b#set_next (Some 1);;
> - : unit = ()
>
> Huh? That should not work. 1 is not a superset of #vbase_type. The
> constraint gets completly ignored by ocaml. Adding back the next gives
> further problems:
>
> # class type virtual vbase_type = object val mutable next : #vbase_type option method virtual set_next : 'a. 'a option -> unit constraint 'a = #vbase_type end;;
> class type virtual vbase_type =
> object
> val mutable next : #vbase_type option
> method virtual set_next : 'a option -> unit
> end
>
> # class virtual vbase : vbase_type = object val mutable next = None method virtual set_next : 'a. 'a option -> unit constraint 'a = #vbase_type end;;
> class virtual vbase : vbase_type
>
> # class base = object inherit vbase
> method set_next n = next <- (n :> vbase_type option) end;;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Error: This method has type #vbase_type option -> unit
> which is less general than 'a. 'a option -> unit
>
> Again I blame ocaml for dropping the constraint. Given the constraint
> the type would be correct.
>
>
>
> So how do I have to specify the set_next method that any superset of
> #base_type will be accepted as argument? Or is that a bug in ocaml and
> my syntax is perfectly fine?
I have no idea. It looks way too complicated.
Use a classic list:
class base = ...
class derived = ... (* inherits base *)
type obj = Base of base | Derived of derived
let obj_list = [ Base (new base); Derived (new derived); ... ]
let iter_base f l =
List.iter (function Base x -> f x | Derived x -> f (x :> base)) l
let iter_derived f l =
List.iter (function Derived x -> f x | Base _ -> ()) l
...
Martin
--
http://mjambon.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-31 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-31 22:05 Goswin von Brederlow
2009-03-31 23:01 ` Martin Jambon [this message]
2009-03-31 23:12 ` [Caml-list] " Martin Jambon
2009-03-31 23:52 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-01 0:08 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-01 11:41 ` Martin Jambon
2009-04-01 15:57 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-01 18:45 ` Martin Jambon
2009-04-01 1:24 ` Peng Zang
2009-04-01 3:25 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-02 8:39 ` Jacques GARRIGUE
2009-04-03 20:53 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-06 4:30 ` 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=49D2A0AF.1080300@ens-lyon.org \
--to=martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=goswin-v-b@web.de \
/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