From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA11248 for caml-redistribution; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:41:47 +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 RAA11419 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:02:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.1])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07264
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:01:56 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from whitley@localhost)
	by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.5) id KAA10186;
	Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:01:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Whitley <whitley@cse.buffalo.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu,  1 Apr 1999 10:01:55 -0500 (EST)
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: initialization of instance variables
In-Reply-To: <19990401151014.56489@pauillac.inria.fr>
References: <14077.2636.294799.938058@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
	<19990401151014.56489@pauillac.inria.fr>
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Message-ID: <14083.34604.727325.126299@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: weis

Jerome Vouillon writes:
 > It would actually be quite easy to allow the use of an instance
 > variable in the following instance variable definitions.  The reason
 > it is not allowed for the moment is that I think it may be a bit
 > confusing. [discussion elided]

Ah, indeed!  That hadn't occured to me offhand, probably as the
code that elicited this question uses immutable instance variables.

In my code, the alternative of using let bindings seemed
counter-intuitive:

(* prohibited form *)
class foo input =
object
  val x = complicated_function input
  val y = another_function x
  (* imagine some methods... *)
end

(* a working, let-bound form *)
class foo' input =
let x = complicated_function input in
object
  val y = another function x
  (* those imaginary methods again... *)
end


While the let-bound version works, it seems to obfuscate the intent,
which was to have an instance variable called 'x'.  It also means that
a subclass inheriting foo' cannot reuse or redefine x.


Thanks much,
John