From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DEBBC69; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:37:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from yquem.inria.fr (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9DDaun6015010; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:36:56 +0200 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 18041) id 6D0DEBC69; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:36:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:36:56 +0200 To: skaller Cc: Luc Maranget , Diego Olivier FERNANDEZ PONS , Gerd Stolpmann , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why + vs +. but "fake" parametric polymorphism for < Message-ID: <20061013133656.GC10977@yquem.inria.fr> References: <1160630285.7649.18.camel@monad> <20061012.144518.115907516.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <1160632737.7649.34.camel@monad> <20061013135650.48rwzsri8ws8coww@webmail.etu.upmc.fr> <1160741662.16545.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061013144605.vvzwfl4pw0kockw8@webmail.etu.upmc.fr> <20061013130100.GA10977@yquem.inria.fr> <1160745317.16199.17.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1160745317.16199.17.camel@rosella.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: luc.maranget@inria.fr (Luc Maranget) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 452F9678.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; parametric:01 polymorphism:01 maranget:01 maranget:01 abstracting:01 replacing:01 variance:01 --luc:01 luc:01 luc:01 caml-list:01 interfaces:01 snip:02 snip:02 constraints:03 > Interfaces act as constraints on what a module > exports. These constraints permit eliding some symbols. > > They also permit abstracting types, or replacing types > with sub/supertypes (depending on variance) or specialisations. > relevant examples > ... for no apparent reason (there is, > of course, a reason). Thank you Skaller for this neat explanation and clear conclusion. My answer was much less informative, I admit. --Luc