From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA27025; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:38:44 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA27226 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:38:43 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from mail3.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.59])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7NMcfD22660
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:38:41 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (syd-ts15-2600-027.tpgi.com.au [203.213.83.27] (may be forged))
	(authenticated (0 bits))
	by mail3.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7NMaDi09935;
	Sat, 24 Aug 2002 08:36:14 +1000
Message-ID: <3D66B96A.9000505@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 08:38:34 +1000
From: John Max Skaller <skaller@ozemail.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2.1) Gecko/20010901
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nalexander@amavi.com
CC: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Naming polymorphic variant types
References: <61954.209.139.221.124.1029974665.squirrel@mail.gx.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

Nick Alexander wrote:


> Heh, that's what I thought.  Oh well... maybe there is a way to do what I
> want anyway.  Let's say I have a record, say {a:int; b:int; c:int}.  I
> wish to have a function that returns sub-records, say {a:int; b:int} or
> {b:int; c:int}.  However, I don't want to (and can't, if I recall, due to
> name clashes) declare all the sub record types.  


> I certainly don't understand enough type/category theory to
> extend the system myself.
> 
> Am I out of luck?


AFAIK there's no reason it can't be implemented, but the
result would not be compatible with the existing
system. For example:

	type t = {a:int; b:int}
	let f x = x.a + 1

The type has to be assumed to be

	{>a:int} -> int (* #1 *)
or
	{a:int} -> int (* #2 *)

with polymorphic records (the declaration of type
t is irrelevant). But the existing system deduces

	t -> int

For polymorphic variants, a new syntax was used to
get around the equivalent problem: that seems to be the main
obstacle to me. The obvious candidate is:

	let f x = x.`a

just like polymorphic variants. `a means
polymorphic record label after a . or
inside {} in leading position (after '{'
or ';')

It's not clear whether this style,
with automatic conversions (#1):

	let f x = x.`a in
	ignore(f {`a=1});
	ignore(f {`a=1; `b=2}) (* #1 *)

would be better than requiring explicit conversion (* #2 *)

	..
	f( {`a=1; `b=2) :> {`a:int} ) )(* #2 *)
	..


but clearly a physical conversion (actual
run time operation) is required, so that the field
is at the right offset.	With polymorphic
variants no physical conversion is required,
it's a compile time typing thing only.

[The typing in presence of mutable fields
may complicate things]

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners