Re: [Caml-list] Another polymorphism puzzle

[Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>]

From: Manos Renieris <er@cs.brown.edu>
> Worse:
> 
> # let f x = { () with foo = 3};;                    
> val f : 'a -> int t = <fun>
> # let f x = { 42 with foo = 3};; 
> val f : 'a -> int t = <fun>
> 
> I think this qualifies as a bug. Especially since the documentation
> says the expr on the left hand side of with has to be a record.

What do you mean by worse? You just exhibit an immediate consequence
of the typing of f below.

> Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:02:14PM -0500, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> > # type 'a t = { foo: 'a };;
> > type 'a t = { foo : 'a; }
> > # let f x = { x with foo = 3 };;
> > val f : 'a -> int t = <fun>

Now, why does it happen?
The reason is simply that the typing of {x with fields} follows
closely its semantics:
  build a record from the given fields, extracting values from x
  when a field is missing.
Consequence: if you provide all the fields, then there is no missing
field, so x can be completely ignored.
Following the manual, the typing could be more restrictive, but the
current typing is perfectly sound.

Jacques Garrigue