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 LAA31404; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:19:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA30906 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:19:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.195]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8U9JKkM016178 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:19:21 +0200 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 79so3526657rnk for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.73.46 with SMTP id v46mr969363rna; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.75.19 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7f8e92aa04093002193cfb3737@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:19:19 +0300 From: Radu Grigore Reply-To: Radu Grigore To: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Factoring HOFs [was Re: C++ STL...] In-Reply-To: <200409291749.17226.jon@jdh30.plus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20040925225246.48566.qmail@web53010.mail.yahoo.com> <200409271411.30384.jon@jdh30.plus.com> <415AD595.3020009@bik-gmbh.de> <200409291749.17226.jon@jdh30.plus.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 415BCF98.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 hofs:01 2004:99 annotated:01 forall:01 int:01 int:01 sep:01 polymorphic:01 wrote:03 slightly:03 stl:03 parameter:04 functions:05 guess:06 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:49:17 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > Why does this end up with a single polymorphic type: Slightly related. I've found in the manual an example were a method is annotated with a type like: 'a. 'a -> int meaning "forall 'a the type is 'a -> int". Is there something similar for normal functions? I guess that such an annotation for the map parameter would solve Jon's problem. regards, radu ------------------- 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