I meant to say: it seems to be that Ocaml breaks the principles of oo programming for no good reason, in this case. <br><br>luca<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br><span class="gmail_quote">From: <b class="gmail_sendername">
Luca de Alfaro</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:luca@dealfaro.org">luca@dealfaro.org</a>&gt;<br>Date: Oct 5, 2007 1:08 AM<br>Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why can&#39;t I call a function over a subclass?<br>To: Inria Ocaml Mailing List &lt;
<a href="mailto:caml-list@inria.fr">caml-list@inria.fr</a>&gt;<br><br></span>I don&#39;t understand this.&nbsp; I thought the whole idea of oo programming was that you could use a subclass in place of a superclass... <br><br>I also thought that the strict typing of Ocaml was there to avoid runtime errors, but if so, why does it complain in this situation, when no runtime error can possibly happen? 
<br><br>It seems to me that the idea of oo programming is broken for no good reason... <br><span class="sg"><br>Luca</span><div><span class="e" id="q_1156f3517d030236_2"><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/5/07, 
<b class="gmail_sendername">Florian Hars</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:hars@bik-gmbh.de" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
hars@bik-gmbh.de</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Luca de Alfaro schrieb:<br>&gt; The absurdity continues:
<br><br>This is not absurd, this is the documented correct behaviuor.<br>If *you* decide that f must only accept arguments of *exactly*<br>type r, the typechecker enforces your decision, as it does if<br>you decide that f may also accept subtypes of r (as long as your
<br>decisions are consistent within he type system).<br><br>Yours, Florian.<br></blockquote></div><br>
</span></div>