From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <robert@fischerventure.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B572BC69
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:07:26 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAE4TF0fQccgFfWdsb2JhbACOTQIJBAYCDxEHgSc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,295,1188770400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="4730211"
Received: from lax-green-bigip-5.dreamhost.com (HELO looneymail-a3.g.dreamhost.com) ([208.113.200.5])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2007 17:07:25 +0200
Received: from carols-computer-3.local (unknown [74.202.102.226])
	by looneymail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87C8282F0;
	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <471776AB.2050109@fischerventure.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:07:23 -0500
From: Robert Fischer <robert@fischerventure.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arnaud Spiwack <aspiwack@lix.polytechnique.fr>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Smells like duck-typing
References: <377673.31302.qm@web54602.mail.re2.yahoo.com>	<47176B4A.5000807@janestcapital.com>	<47176DB6.7090700@lix.polytechnique.fr>	<471771A7.3010402@janestcapital.com> <47177585.6030208@lix.polytechnique.fr>
In-Reply-To: <47177585.6030208@lix.polytechnique.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; supertype:01 haskell-like:01 caml-list:01 suggestion:03 inheritance:03 suggests:04 dismiss:09 feature:09 fischer:10 maybe:10 explain:11 might:12 end:12 agree:12 formally:13 


> You don't invent them, they exist. I can't agree to dismiss this 
> suggestion without further thought. It might end up being 
> non-sensical, maybe not. It merely suggests a way, to derive new 
> values, whose type happen to be a supertype of the original one. Why 
> not ? It may be considered to the Haskell-like "derive" feature, and 
> such. It is just a way to build new values out of known one.
>
Formally, can you explain what you're looking for here, and how it's not 
congruent with inheritance?

~~ Robert.