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 SAA02993 for caml-red; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:39:55 +0100 (MET)
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 OAA28511 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:25 +0100 (MET)
Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f0BD9Pj19086
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:25 +0100 (MET)
Received: from spi.lip6.fr (IDENT:root@spi.lip6.fr [132.227.83.55])
          by isis.lip6.fr (8.11.0/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id f0BD9NV21878
          ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:23 +0100
Received: from baltazard.lip6.fr (root@baltazard.lip6.fr [132.227.82.102])
          by spi.lip6.fr (8.8.7/jtpda-5.2) with ESMTP id OAA07156
          ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:29 +0100
Received: from (boulme@localhost)
          by baltazard.lip6.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.2) id OAA02994
          ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:21 +0100
Message-Id: <200101111309.OAA02994@baltazard.lip6.fr>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: "Mattias Waldau" <mattias.waldau@tacton.se>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Why can't I use val mover : < move : int -> unit; .. > list -> 
	unit ?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:07:33 +0100."
             <HDEEKOMJILGEIHIMAPCDGEFPDNAA.mattias.waldau@tacton.se> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:09:21 +0100
From: "Sylvain BOULM'E" <Sylvain.Boulme@lip6.fr>
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

> I understand the principle that the compiler must be sure that everywhere I
> use the list, the elements will be of the right type. In this case each
> element must have the method move.
> 
> However, it seems to me that in this case the compiler has already done the
> complex part, i.e. realizing that if all objects have a move-method, then
> everything is ok. So I don't see the point that I have to coerce explicitily
> when putting elements into the list.
> 
Such a coercion is not always possible: forget the "unnecessary" methods has not always a meaning. For instance, let's have an example a bit more complex than yours :

In the context :

class pt = 
  object (_:'a) 
    method compare (x:'a) = true
  end

class qt (i:int) = 
  object (s:'a)
    val mutable state = i
    method compare (x:'a) = x#get = s#get 
    method get = state 
  end

let p = new pt and q1 = new qt 1 and q2 = new qt 2;;

(** test if x is comparable to all elements of l **)
(* val compare_iter : < compare : 'a -> bool; .. > list -> 'a -> bool *)
let compare_iter l x = List.fold_left (fun b y -> b && y#compare x) true l;; 

compare_iter [p;p] p;;
compare_iter [q1;q2] q1;;

Both these expressions below are not well-typed :
compare_iter [q1;q2] p;;
compare_iter [(q1:> pt);(q2:> pt)] p;;

Indeed, an object of type "qt" can not be coerced to an object of type "pt" because an object of type "qt" needs an object with a "get" method as argument for "compare". What is interesting here with ocaml polymorphism, is that you can however have a function as "compare_iter" which can both handle "lists of pt" and "lists of qt".


Hope this helps,

Sylvain.