Re: [Caml-list] Is arrow programming impossible in ocaml?

[Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

From: Nick Name <nick.name@inwind.it>

> Here it is:
> 
> module type ARROW =
> sig
>   type ('a,'b) t
> 
>   val arr : ('a -> 'b) -> ('a,'b) t
>   val (>>>) : ('a,'b) t -> ('b,'c) t -> ('a,'c) t
>   val (&&&) : ('a,'b) t -> ('a,'c) t -> ('a,('b * 'c)) t
> end

[...]

> (* now in the toplevel
> 
>   # let t = time >>> time;;
>   val t : ('_a, float) Var.Time.t = <abstr> *)
>  
> Well, that '_a is exactly what I wish to avoid;

I see.

> I had this suggestion privately (with simplified type declarations):
> 
> # type ('a,'b) sf = Arr of ('a * float -> 'b);;
> type ('a, 'b) sf = Arr of ('a * float -> 'b)
> # let (>>>) f1 f2  = match f1(),f2() with (Arr f1),(Arr f2) -> Arr (fun 
> (a,s) -> f2 (f1(a,s),s));;
> val ( >>> ) : (unit -> ('a, 'b) sf) -> (unit -> ('b, 'c) sf) -> ('a, 'c) 
> sf =
>   <fun>
> # let time () = Arr (fun (_,t) -> t);;
> val time : unit -> ('a, float) sf = <fun>
> # let t () = time >>> time;;
> val t : unit -> ('a, float) sf = <fun>
> 
> and yet I don't know if it's satisfactory.

What would be the problem?
This is just about delaying the arrow construction, to make sure that
no side-effect may occur.

> however I realize that this 
> is a general problem with caml view of polymorphism, probably driven by 
> type-inference decidability issues; in fact I can't write a polymorphic 
> compose operator in general, because I will get exactly the same 
> problems.

This has nothing to do with decidability at all!
Again, this is the value restriction, which solves a problem with
soundness in presence of side-effects, and this is a FAQ.

And you can perfectly define a polymorphic compose operator.
  # let compose f g x = f (g x);;
  val compose : ('a -> 'b) -> ('c -> 'a) -> 'c -> 'b = <fun>
The only difficulty is that to create polymorphic functions with this
operator you must apply eta-expansion.
  # let swap (x,y) = (y,x);;
  val swap : 'a * 'b -> 'b * 'a = <fun>
  # fun p -> compose swap swap p;;
  - : 'a * 'b -> 'a * 'b = <fun>

By the way, if you are ready to break abstraction (which in your case
doesn't seem essential), you can build a t with the right polymorphic
type:
  # let t = T(fun s -> let T a = time >>> time in a s);;
  val t : ('a, float) Var.Time.t = ...
Not very clean, but you can replace time >>> time by any polymorphic
expression.
It can be made a bit simpler by using a record instead of a sum:
  # let t = {f=fun s -> (time >>> time).f s};;

Jacques Garrigue

-------------------
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