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 WAA10681; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:33:51 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 WAA08532 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:33:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ftp.filemaker.com (ftp.filemaker.com [192.35.50.27]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2UKXn924642 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:33:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from imap.filemaker.com (imap.filemaker.com [17.184.4.101]) by ftp.filemaker.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA10939 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.184.16.95] ([17.184.16.95]) by imap.filemaker.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA00807 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:33:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200103302033.MAA00807@imap.filemaker.com> Subject: Re: Overloading again (Was Re: [Caml-list] Interfacing C++ and Ocaml) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:41:43 -0800 x-sender: hao-yang_wang@mail.filemaker.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Hao-yang Wang To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >An even longer time ago I asked about overloading and got a nice long >reply from Francois Rouaix, describing the history of overloading in Caml >and ending with something like "Jun Furuse is now working on it". You can >read about the latest incarnation of his work by going to > >http://pauillac.inria.fr/jfla/2001/actes/index.html > >and downloading > >Generic Polymorphism in ML > >which as you can guess is in English unlike his paper last year. > >I'd also love to know if and when this will make it into Ocaml since this >is one of the few things that I dislike about ML style languages and >even after quite a bit of Caml programming I still miss overloading. > >-- Brian Well, I re-read Francois Rouaix's long email, and at the end he said: >In this type system, we still have static type-checking and inference, >but there are some practical problems: coherence (as always when you do >powerful overloading), true separate compilation, but more significantly, >you have to define all "instances" of an overloaded function in a single >"generic" definition. In most cases, this is not what the user wants. >>From Jun Furuse's paper, it seems that we still have to define all "instances" of an overloaded function in a single generic" definition. If so, we cannot extend an existing function/operator, such as (+), to parameters of new types. Is this true, or did I miss something in Jun's paper? Cheers, Hao-yang Wang ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr