* [Caml-list] Polymorphic records typing question
@ 2003-12-22 10:50 Alex Baretta
2003-12-22 20:26 ` Guillaume Marceau
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alex Baretta @ 2003-12-22 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ocaml
Here's a puzzle for the Caml breeders:
# type poly = { f : 'a . 'a -> 'a };;
type poly = { f : 'a. 'a -> 'a; }
# let id x = x;;
val id : 'a -> 'a = <fun>
# let foo = { f = id };;
val foo : poly = {f = <fun>}
# let rec id x = x and foo = { f = id } ;;
This field value has type 'a -> 'a which is less general than 'b. 'b -> 'b
Why is this last recursive definition unacceptable?
Alex
-------------------
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] Polymorphic records typing question
2003-12-22 10:50 [Caml-list] Polymorphic records typing question Alex Baretta
@ 2003-12-22 20:26 ` Guillaume Marceau
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Marceau @ 2003-12-22 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Baretta; +Cc: Ocaml
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Alex Baretta wrote:
> Here's a puzzle for the Caml breeders:
>
> # type poly = { f : 'a . 'a -> 'a };;
> type poly = { f : 'a. 'a -> 'a; }
> # let id x = x;;
> val id : 'a -> 'a = <fun>
> # let foo = { f = id };;
> val foo : poly = {f = <fun>}
> # let rec id x = x and foo = { f = id } ;;
> This field value has type 'a -> 'a which is less general than 'b. 'b -> 'b
>
> Why is this last recursive definition unacceptable?
>
> Alex
>
Types are not generalized within the scope of their recursive declaration.
For instance, take this contrived definition of the identity function :
let rec id x =
if true then (ignore(id 1); x)
else ((ignore (id [])); x)
^^
This expression has type 'a list but is here used with type int
Although id could be safely be assigned the type 'a . 'a -> 'a, the type
inference algorithm cannot figure it out.
It is a limitation that raises from the way the type inference is
computed. Then again, it isn't much of a limitation: both my example and
yours can trivially be rewritten such that they type.
Also, this is one good reason to not use the 'and' keyword unless you
actually need a mutual recursion. Instead of writing this:
let a = ... body_a ...
and b = ... body_b ... in
...
write this:
let a = ... body_a ... in
let b = ... body_b ... in
...
It will save you the above error in the case 'body_b' uses 'a' polymorphically.
--
"The thing I remember most about America is that it's silly.
That can be quite a relief at times." -- Thom Yorke, Radiohead
- Guillaume
-------------------
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-22 20:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-22 10:50 [Caml-list] Polymorphic records typing question Alex Baretta
2003-12-22 20:26 ` Guillaume Marceau
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox