From: David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>
To: OCaml List <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Anonymous sum types in functors
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:48:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <77CD1AA4-BDA5-4CE3-A563-E78BE8BABDF3@metastack.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <563607038852382852@orange.fr>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2042 bytes --]
On 23 Jun 2013, at 10:13, "Damien Guichard" <alphablock@orange.fr<mailto:alphablock@orange.fr>> wrote:
> a) Is there a way to do it where you can end up with type elt = A | B (I think the answer is no?)
> b) Is there a syntactically lighter way to write the module definition?
My own quick & dirty hack :
module FlagSet = Set.Make(struct type t = [`A | `B] let compare = compare end)
Sadly not - the values are in use with C bindings and polymorphic variants would rather defeat the point of what I'm doing!
What would be nice would be an equivalent 'immediate' syntax for variant types - but its only use would be this context, I expect!
David
- damien
I couldn't think of a better way to describe what I'm trying to do, so forgive the possibly strange subject!
In:
module IntSet = Set.Make(struct type t = int let compare = compare end)
the resulting signature is:
sig
type elt = int
type t
...
but in:
module FlagSet = Set.Make(struct type t = A | B let compare = compare end)
the resulting signature is:
sig
type elt
type t
...
i.e. the constructors are hidden (I can see why, but presumably it is a special case in the type checker?) and the module is essentially useless. I don't want to define the type external to the module - the idea is that I'd be able to write Flag1Set.add Flag1Set.CommonFlag Flag1Set.empty and Flag2Set.add Flag2Set.CommonFlag Flag2Set.empty, etc.
I can work around this by writing:
module FlagSet =
struct
type flag = A | B
include Set.Make(struct type t = flag let compare = compare end)
end
where the resulting signature is:
sig
type flag = A | B
type elt = flag
type t
...
but I'm wondering:
a) Is there a way to do it where you can end up with type elt = A | B (I think the answer is no?)
b) Is there a syntactically lighter way to write the module definition?
David
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6414 bytes --]
next parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-23 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <563607038852382852@orange.fr>
2013-06-23 9:48 ` David Allsopp [this message]
2013-06-23 7:16 David Allsopp
2013-06-23 15:14 ` Xavier Leroy
2013-06-23 23:15 ` Jacques Garrigue
2013-06-24 9:39 ` David Allsopp
2013-06-24 14:37 ` Kristopher Micinski
2013-06-24 14:41 ` Raphaël Proust
2013-06-24 19:13 ` Kristopher Micinski
2013-06-25 8:39 ` David Allsopp
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=77CD1AA4-BDA5-4CE3-A563-E78BE8BABDF3@metastack.com \
--to=dra-news@metastack.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/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