Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Constraints get ignored in methods

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

From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
> > If you really want to stick to methods only (because of library
> > design, for instance), then a clever trick is to use a coercion
> > methods:
> >
> > class virtual base_type =
> >   object (self)
> >     val mutable virtual next : base_type option
> 
> Why is next virtual here? Doesn't that require that anyone inheriting
> base_type has to define their own version of next? Seems like needless
> duplication.

No real reason. Just that you class type contained such field, so I
pasted it it the least effecting way. But since no method inside
base_type accesses it, I agree that it seems better not to put it
there.

> >     method virtual set_next_base : base_type option -> unit
> >     method as_base = (self :> base_type)
> >     method set_next : 'a. <as_base : base_type; ..> as 'a -> unit =
> >       fun x -> self#set_next_base x#as_base
> >   end

A small typo in the above. Like in the function example it should be

   fun x -> self#set_next_base (Some x#as_base)

> This helps a lot. Nice little trick to go through an immediate object
> type.

Actually, the self coercion and the use of a non-abbreviated object
type are independent, but in general it is too heavy to use the second
without the first.

        Jacques Garrigue