From: Jordan W <jordojw@gmail.com>
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Cc: Mailing List OCaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Explicit Arity with Polymorphic Variants
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 19:47:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPOA5_75KA6DYsYnCT2Ey0hPhbWfosRwzCz4UkPR_Rctc2E8tw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AC838ED9-E3A8-498B-B34F-2BF8868FF22F@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3916 bytes --]
David Allsopp, could you please include me on the "Reply" so that the mail
threads make their way to my inbox?
David, are you certain that the explicit_arity attribute is only related to
type declarations? I do not believe that to be the case. I understand them
to apply to patterns and expressions as well.
(* Declares a variant that accepts a *single* parameter *)
type oneArgTuple = OneArg of (int*int)
(* Works because arity is massaged into whatever is necessary and doesn't
need to be expressed at parse time. *)
let OneArg (x,y) = OneArg (1,2)
(* But you can *explicitly* enforce arity and tell the type system that
this tuple should be treated as multiple arguments *)
(* That causes this to fail type checking on this tuple pattern! *)
let (OneArg (x,y) [@explicit_arity]) = OneArg (1,2);;
>> Error: The constructor OneArg expects 1 argument(s),
>> but is applied here to 2 argument(s)
(* Similarly, at parse time, you can tell the parser to parse an expression
as being multiple arguments *)
let result = OneArg (1,2)[@explicit_arity];;
>> Error: The constructor OneArg expects 1 argument(s),
>> but is applied here to 2 argument(s)
So the fact that you can inform the parser to treat a tuple as multiple
arguments to a Constructor, means that the same should be true of
polymorphic variants, but it is not. For example, this type checks but it
shouldn't:
let (`MyThing (x,y) [@explicit_arity]) = `MyThing (2,2);;
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Jacques Garrigue <
garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> The answer is simple: polymorphic variants can only accept one argument
> (which may of course be a tuple). The other behavior would have required
> a specific syntax for multi-parameter polymorphic variants, since there is
> no information associated to the constructor for them.
>
> Jacques Garrigue
>
> On 2015/01/23 15:53, Jordan W wrote:
> >
> > The OCaml compiler allows distinguishing between variants that accept a
> single tuple and variant types that accept several parameters. What looks
> like a variant type accepting a tuple, is actually the later:
> >
> > type x = TwoSeparateArguments of int * int
> > let tuple = (10,10)
> > let thisWontWork = TwoSeparateArguments tuple;;
> > >> Error: The constructor TwoSeparateArguments expects 2 argument(s),
> but is
> applied here to 1 argument(s)
> >
> > (* Notice the extra parens around the two ints *)
> > type x = OneArgumentThatIsATuple of (int * int)
> > let thisActuallyWorks = OneArgumentThatIsATuple tuple
> >
> > The extra parens distinguish at type definition time which of the two is
> intended.
> >
> > But OCaml does some automatic massaging of the data that you supply to
> constructor values.
> > let _ = OneArgumentThatIsATuple (4, 5)
> > let _ = TwoSeparateArguments (4, 5)
> >
> > No extra parens are required in this case. But OCaml does give you the
> ability to annotate patterns and expressions with an "explicit_arity"
> attribute which allows syntactic distinction between supplying two separate
> parameters vs. one that happens to be a tuple. This is important for other
> parser extensions that wish to treat the two distinctly. What OCaml allows
> (explicit_arity attribute) works well enough.
> >
> > The only problem is that there doesn't seem to be a way to utilize the
> same explicit_arity attributes with polymorphic variants. Such attributes
> are not acknowledged by the type system. Is this intended?
> >
> > Taking a quick look at typecore.ml, explicit_arity appears to be
> acknowledged on standard constructors but not polymorphic variants.
> >
> https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/6e85c2d956c8fd5b45acd70a27586e44bb3a3119/typing/typecore.ml
> >
> > It seems these should be brought to consistency. I will file a mantis
> issue unless anyone believes this is intended.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jordan
> >
> >
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5112 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-24 3:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-23 6:53 Jordan W
2015-01-23 8:03 ` Jacques Garrigue
2015-01-23 9:04 ` Jordan W
2015-01-23 9:56 ` David Allsopp
2015-01-24 8:52 ` Gabriel Scherer
2015-01-25 8:02 ` Jordan W
2015-01-25 10:11 ` David Allsopp
2015-01-25 19:57 ` Jordo
2015-01-26 4:05 ` Jacques Garrigue
2015-01-24 3:47 ` Jordan W [this message]
2015-01-24 8:24 ` 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=CAPOA5_75KA6DYsYnCT2Ey0hPhbWfosRwzCz4UkPR_Rctc2E8tw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jordojw@gmail.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp \
/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