* [Caml-list] why is this definition less general?
@ 2015-08-27 9:59 Christoph Höger
2015-08-27 10:11 ` Jeremie Dimino
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Höger @ 2015-08-27 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml users
Dear all,
I found that I can evade the "first occurence unifies" behavior of
recursive polymorphic functions by using explicit polymorphic types:
utop # let rec a_to_opt : 'a . ('a -> 'a option) = fun x -> None and
int_to_opt (i:int) = a_to_opt i and str_to_opt (s:string)= a_to_opt s ;;
val a_to_opt : 'a -> 'a option = <fun>
val int_to_opt : int -> int option = <fun>
val str_to_opt : bytes -> bytes option = <fun>
When I try to annotate the type in the body of a_to_opt, however, I get
a "less general" error:
utop # let rec a_to_opt : 'a . ('a -> 'a option) = fun x -> (None : 'a
option) and int_to_opt (i:int) = a_to_opt i and str_to_opt (s:string)=
a_to_opt s ;;
Error: This definition has type 'a -> 'a option which is less general
than
'a0. 'a0 -> 'a0 option
Obviously, 'a is bound by its first occurrence in the type annotation,
here. Can someone explain this behavior?
--
Christoph Höger
Technische Universität Berlin
Fakultät IV - Elektrotechnik und Informatik
Übersetzerbau und Programmiersprachen
Sekr. TEL12-2, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, 10587 Berlin
Tel.: +49 (30) 314-24890
E-Mail: christoph.hoeger@tu-berlin.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] why is this definition less general?
2015-08-27 9:59 [Caml-list] why is this definition less general? Christoph Höger
@ 2015-08-27 10:11 ` Jeremie Dimino
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeremie Dimino @ 2015-08-27 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Höger; +Cc: caml users
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 590 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Christoph Höger <
christoph.hoeger@tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Obviously, 'a is bound by its first occurrence in the type annotation,
> here. Can someone explain this behavior?
In a type annotation, the scope of variables is only the type annotation.
So in your example the ['a] in the annotation of [a_to_opt] and the ['a] in
the annotation of [None] are distinct. To refer to the same type, you need
to use a local abstract type:
let rec a_to_opt : type a. (a -> a option) = fun x -> (None : a
option
)
--
Jeremie
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1394 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-08-27 10:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-08-27 9:59 [Caml-list] why is this definition less general? Christoph Höger
2015-08-27 10:11 ` Jeremie Dimino
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox