Re: [Caml-list] classes vs modules

[Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de>]

Tom _ wrote:
> 
> BTW, I opted for just passing the "lt" function
> as explicit arguments to all the functions in the
> module that need them.  That seems like the most
> general approach, although it means some extra
> arguments and it doesn't guarantee consistency,
> as people might pass incompatible versions of "lt"
> to different calls;

You can avoid this by passing it to the creator
function only and store it inside the object:

	val make_treap : ('a -> 'a -> bool) -> 'a treap

The treap type would look like this:

	type 'a treap' = Empty | ...
	type 'a treap  = {treap' : treap'; lt : 'a -> 'a -> bool}

In most cases I would prefer the functor version, though.

Hope this helps,

	- Andreas

-- 
Andreas Rossberg, rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de

"Computer games don't affect kids.
 If Pac Man affected us as kids, we would all be running around in
 darkened rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive music."
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr