From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32356BC6A for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:22:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.4]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA9GMAKI007979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:22:12 +0100 Received: (qmail 5954 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2006 16:22:03 -0000 Received: from shell2.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.3]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 9 Nov 2006 16:22:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:22:01 -0800 (PST) From: brogoff To: skaller Cc: Jon Harrop , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] parameterized pattern In-Reply-To: <1163062280.28049.110.camel@rosella.wigram> Message-ID: References: <454FA5F8.5030106@hq.idt.net> <4a708d20611081555i1f860911rfb7a29d31a34ce7a@mail.gmail.com> <200611090519.45998.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1163062280.28049.110.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 455355B2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 extensional:01 polymorphism:01 gcaml:01 ocaml:01 extensional:01 polymorphism:01 restrictive:01 overloading:01 gcaml:01 polymorphic:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, skaller wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 05:19 +0000, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Thursday 09 November 2006 01:45, brogoff wrote: > > > It's a pity, as I've often wished that OCaml supported the extensional > > > polymorphism that GCaml has, but I don't think that's going to happen. > > > It would probaby make more sense to create a separate language at this > > > point, since OCaml is complicated enough. > > > > I think F# provides some form of extensional polymorphism. I just did a quick scan of some F# docs and I saw nothing. What did you have in mind? > > I'm not convinced that it is a good idea yet... For almost any given language feature, there will be people who like it, and people who don't. Do you think having class based OO in OCaml is a good idea? I find it useful, especially since OCaml records are far too restrictive, but I hope that in some future ML that there are other approaches as the class/object system is complex, and the interactions with "core ML + modules" is tricky. That said, the class system is being used and it won't go away, and some people really like it. > Well FYI Felix has traditional (open) overloading, but since it > doesn't allow traditional C++ style dependent name lookup because > that would destroy parametricity of polymorphic functions, > something else was needed. > > So it now has first order typeclasses to solve this problem. Did you consider GCaml style generic functions? -- Brian