From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA01919 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:18:55 +0200 (MET DST)
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 MAA04387 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:36:21 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from isil.maya.com (HOPKINS.PC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.215.35])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22356
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:36:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from prevost@localhost)
	by isil.maya.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18162;
	Mon, 6 Sep 1999 06:38:33 -0400
Sender: weis
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Ocaml 2 object system origins
From: John Prevost <prevost@maya.com>
Date: 06 Sep 1999 06:38:32 -0400
Message-ID: <m33dws495j.fsf@isil.maya.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) Emacs/20.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I just came across the paper "Typing in object-oriented languages:
Achieving expressiveness and safety" by Kim Bruce, and was struck,
once I referred back to the O'Caml documentation on the new object
system, by the similarities.

So, I was just wondering whether the features of the new object system
are based on this paper, a predecessor of this paper, or perhaps the
language LOOM, which apparently shares syntax with the examples in the
paper.

(The presence of # types seems too much to be chance.)

Thanks,

John Prevost.