From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E29BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue,  6 Oct 2009 14:37:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocBAETXykrUnwckimdsb2JhbACCIJhXAQEBCgkMBxEGt3CEKgQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,513,1249250400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="37656465"
Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.36])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 06 Oct 2009 14:37:38 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroFAETXykrUnw6U/2dsb2JhbACCINEHhCoE
Received: from fhw-relay07.plus.net ([212.159.14.148])
  by relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 06 Oct 2009 13:37:37 +0100
Received: from [87.114.87.187] (helo=leper.local)
	 by fhw-relay07.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Mv9IP-00027P-7u
	for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:37:37 +0100
From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Constructors are not functions
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:38:20 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <4ACB319A.1080608@wanadoo.fr> <4d1b2df20910060519n920bccaud71c0d28f9ce5269@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4d1b2df20910060519n920bccaud71c0d28f9ce5269@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200910061338.20954.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
X-Plusnet-Relay: 9d38541c3277c8fe4ff1ea47d6c3cf27
X-Spam: no; 0.00; constructors:01 semantics:01 semantics:01 constructors:01 2009:98 frog:98 wrote:01 partial:01 partial:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 int:01 expression:02 match:02 match:02 

On Tuesday 06 October 2009 13:19:58 Philippe Wang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't know the actual reason, but I guess it's simply a choice of
> semantics.
>
> It woud be weird to be able to deconstruct (Bar 42) while not be able
> to deconstruct (Bar) as it's not constructed.
> I mean we can write (match x with Bar y -> y).
> If partial construction were accepted we may like to write
> (match x with Bar -> x) but we couldn't because Bar is like a function
> then.
>
> With type t = A | B of int
> what would be the error warning for
> (match x with A -> 42 | B -> 43) ?
>
> Well, then I guess the reason is that it would be complicated to
> choose some sound enough semantics for partial application of
> constructors, since the solution of having to write (fun x -> Bar x)
> is much simpler.

Can you not just say that Bar in an expression is a function (fun x -> Bar x)?

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e