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 OAA17444; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:52:19 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA17456 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:52:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3QCqFYM009826 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:52:17 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp119-113.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.119.113]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3QCpnk2039813; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:22:02 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] The Missing Library From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Martin Berger Cc: The Caml Trade In-Reply-To: <408CFBDA.6040604@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> References: <20040423185148.GA4434@excelhustler.com> <20040423195206.GA27257@tallman.kefka.frap.net> <20040423202342.GA5962@excelhustler.com> <20040423223611.33ef1c08@haddock.max.fr> <20040423211003.GD6783@excelhustler.com> <20040423213325.GF6783@excelhustler.com> <93448C92-9685-11D8-891D-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <408BA602.5090506@socialtools.net> <1082901345.9537.326.camel@pelican.wigram> <408CFBDA.6040604@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1082983908.9537.522.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 26 Apr 2004 22:51:49 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at = by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 ocaml's:01 expressive:01 extlib:01 pubs:01 generic:01 03.:99 arriving:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 behaviour:01 nsw:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 22:08, Martin Berger wrote: > > The result is, in my opinion, the best CS library > > EVER built. Its just a pity the C++ language doesn't > > have what it takes to drive it (lexical scoping > > like ML has). > > i agree with this. what i wonder is: why not do the STL for > ocaml? of course ocaml's typing system is not (yet) up > expressive enough to express/enforce all relevant concepts, > and may never be, but so what? neither is c++, but the > STL is highly successful. ExtLib (the sf one at ocaml-lib.sf.net) does have some STL like concepts. See below for more comments .. > maybe this text is of interest: > > http://www.osl.iu.edu/publications/pubs/2003/comparing_generic_programming03.pdf Yeah, I've read that. There is some interesting analysis, but the basis is flawed. The authors approached the subject with a pre-conceived idea, that happens to be invalid. They're basically hooked on 'generic' meaning what templates do: bind in a macro like manner by name. This isn't proper polymorphism. It *is* what provides the functorially polymorphic behaviour. Aka 'polyadic'. But there are better ways. Err .. guests arriving .. more later :D -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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