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 GAA15740; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:54:36 +0100 (MET) 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 GAA16170 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:54:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (swordfish.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.124]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2M5t6KW015698 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:55:07 +0100 Received: from orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (orchestra.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.20]) by swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AFDDF2AA; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix, from userid 2554) id A45C89BBA2; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:54:30 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Vanier To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-reply-to: <1079926276.3165.49.camel@pelican.wigram> (message from skaller on 22 Mar 2004 14:31:16 +1100) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] extensible records again References: <20040321062143.BE7D29BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <405D4D77.2030403@columbia.edu> <20040321084008.429279BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <405DBE78.5020609@columbia.edu> <20040321223401.392519BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <1079926276.3165.49.camel@pelican.wigram> Message-Id: <20040322055430.A45C89BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:54:30 -0800 (PST) X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; vanier:01 mvanier:01 caml-list:01 extensible:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 2004:99 vanier:01 implemented:01 covariant:01 subtyping:01 fixpoints:01 variants:01 variants:01 1100:98 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 296 > From: skaller > Date: 22 Mar 2004 14:31:16 +1100 > > On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 09:34, Michael Vanier wrote: > > > If I understand you correctly, then you're arguing that *all* my "core > > types" should be implemented using polymorphic variants. > > I use Polymorphic Variants almost exclusively in Felix. > They're more flexible but also give nastier error messages. > > The main downside is that to make covariant subtyping > you need to use fixpoints, which is fine for a single > parameter but unworkable for a more complex term > structure. Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by this? Mike ------------------- 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