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 UAA28809; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:05:01 +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 UAA29666 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:04:59 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail13.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.213])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h7LI4wT22091
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:04:58 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (qmail 2261 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2003 18:04:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO grace.speakeasy.org) ([216.254.0.2])
          (envelope-sender <brogoff@speakeasy.net>)
          by mail13.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP
          for <ben@socialtools.net>; 21 Aug 2003 18:04:56 -0000
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: brogoff@speakeasy.net
To: Benjamin Geer <ben@socialtools.net>
cc: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>,
        "caml-list@inria.fr" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] does class polymorphism need to be so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <3F449301.8050500@socialtools.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308211008560.22336-100000@grace.speakeasy.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 caml-list:01 downcast:01 passing:01 api:01 api:01 val:01 coerce:01 inherit:01 inherit:01 speakeasy:01 coercion:01 objects:02 unit:03 string:03 
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Benjamin Geer wrote:
> Alternatively, you could use a virtual base class 'connection', and 
> always downcast the implementing class before passing it to application 
> code.  But this places an additional burden on the library author.

I think the burden is very slight, but I have no problem at all with using 
functions outside of objects. Realistic implementations would provide 
coercion functions for every base class you want to coerce to, perhaps 
named something like "as_base_class_name". Using the exmaple you give in 
another message, we get something like this 

(* A simple API *)

class virtual connection =
   object
     method virtual close : unit
   end ;;

class virtual driver =
   object
     method virtual get_connection : string -> connection
   end ;;

let as_connection o = (o : #connection :> connection);;

(* An implementation of the API *)

class mysql_connection db_name =
  object
    inherit connection

    val _db_name = db_name

    method close =
      print_string "closing connection ";
      print_string _db_name;
      print_newline();

       (* An extra method, which could be used by the driver *)
    method get_status = "OK"
  end ;;

class mysql_driver =
   object
     inherit driver
     method get_connection db_name =
       as_connection (new mysql_connection db_name)
   end;;

which doesn't seem bad compared to your original desired code. 

-- Brian


-------------------
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