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 MAA25929; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:24:02 +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 MAA25934 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:24:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nexus.stwing.upenn.edu (NEXUS.STWING.UPENN.EDU [165.123.132.61]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6EANxj26762 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:24:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from force.stwing.upenn.edu (daemon@force.stwing.upenn.edu [165.123.132.65]) by nexus.stwing.upenn.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6EANwT11840 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO) for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 06:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from wlovas@localhost) by force.stwing.upenn.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6EANwP29871 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 06:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 06:23:57 -0400 From: William Lovas To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Five Questions about Objects Message-ID: <20020714102357.GA29788@force.stwing.upenn.edu> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020714095816B.yoriyuki@mbg.sphere.ne.jp> <20020714183842E.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020714183842E.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 06:38:42PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > This only works if your object has a monomorphic type. > > The real point is that if object definitions were really first class > in the language, they would not be restricted by these strange > variable binding conditions: type inference would be enough. > Since there is no theoretical problem here, it may well be a useful > extension. I was thinking about this recently, and it occurs to me that first class object definitions would provide something equivalent to polymorphicly typed records. This would be a nice dual to the polymorphic variants already in the language, i think. Are there any plans for such an extension? Would such an extension be feasible? William ------------------- 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