From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0BEBCAE
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:53:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j5S0rXUo031726
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:53:34 +0200
Received: from localhost (suiren [130.54.16.25])
	by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j5S0rQX4014065;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:53:26 +0900 (JST)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:54:06 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20050628.095406.112629429.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
To: micha-1@fantasymail.de
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] state pattern...
From: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <200506280123.55251.micha-1@fantasymail.de>
References: <200506262157.02201.micha-1@fantasymail.de>
	<3fce1487ee8fd9f28edbe70276980346@wetware.com>
	<200506280123.55251.micha-1@fantasymail.de>
X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42C09F8D.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 annotations:01 subtyping:01 recursive:01 'self:01 val:01 val:01 endline:01 endline:01 ocaml:01 ...:98 ...:98 clearer:01 simpler:01 simpler:01 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Level: 

From: Michael Wohlwend <micha-1@fantasymail.de>

> I have modified the code, so that some method(s) of the state
> classes get the context class as parameter; I think it took me 3
> hour to get the type definitions working :-)
> 
> Can this be done simpler? It works, although I don't completly
> understand all of it :-) 

There is a variety of things you could do to simplify your code.
If you want to keep the polymorphic-method based approach, you can
avoid type annotations in stat1#show an state2#show by writing
(this : #state).

But another way to simplify things is to switch to subtyping.
That is, just have
  method show : param -> unit
in class state, and change context to
  method show = state_#show (this :> param)

Note also that your definition of state as a recursive type will cause
problems later, if you try to finalize it in a class.

Here is a possibly simpler version of your code.

class type param =
 object 
 method name : string
 end

class type ['next] state =
 object
  method show: param -> unit
  method next: 'next
 end

class ['state] context s =
 object (this:'self)
 val name = "context"
 val state : _ #state = s 
 method state : 'state = state
 method name = name
 method show = state#show (this :> param)
 method run = {< state = state#next >}
 end

class state1 = object (this : _ #state)
 method show c = print_endline ("state1 of " ^ c#name)
 method next = new state2 
end
and state2 = object (this : _ #state)
 method show c = print_endline ("state2 of " ^ c#name) 
 method next = new state1
end;;

let c = new context (new state1) ;;
c#show;;
let c = c#run;;
c#show;;

Note that there is an intrinsic weakness to the object-oriented
approach in ocaml: state1 and state2 must actually be the same type,
since a method of context cannot return context with a different
parameter.

On the other hand, if you exactly know what a state should be from the
beginning, you can eliminate all type parameters.

class type param =
 object 
 method name : string
 end

class type state =
 object
  method show: param -> unit
  method next: state
 end

class context s =
 object (this)
 val name = "context"
 val state : state = s 
 method state = state
 method name = name
 method show = state#show (this :> param)
 method run = {< state = state#next >}
 end

class state1 = object (this : #state)
 method show c = print_endline ("state1 of " ^ c#name)
 method next = new state2
end
and state2 = object (this : #state)
 method show c = print_endline ("state2 of " ^ c#name) 
 method next = new state1
end;;

But then there is little point in using classes... records and
functions would do the job in a clearer way.

Jacques Garrigue