From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E627BBCA for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:39:30 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,426,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7856303" Received: from arvin.irisa.fr (HELO [131.254.11.86]) ([131.254.11.86]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Feb 2008 15:39:30 +0100 Message-ID: <47C81829.4010505@free.fr> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:35:21 +0100 From: "Tiphaine.Turpin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070303) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keiko Nakata Cc: garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OO programming References: <20080226.151750.16504093.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <47C4AE08.5000604@free.fr> <20080227.103733.43387508.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20080228.173429.68546494.keiko@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <20080228.173429.68546494.keiko@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; functors:01 functors:01 recursive:01 camlp:01 syntax:01 camlp:01 syntax:01 encodings:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 beginners:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 bin:01 Keiko Nakata a écrit : > Hello, > > >>> As for extension, I'm fully satisfied. But the verbosity level is >>> annoying for scalability... >>> >> Well, yes, that's always the problem with functors... >> > > Since there are some people (including me) > who are interested in using functors and recursive modules > in the style of object-oriented context, > Do you mean including classes in functors, as Jacques Garrigue described, or using modules like classes ? > I thought that it could be useful to devise > a (camlp4) syntax extension which mitigates this a bit painful verbosity. camlp4 extensions may help. I already used some for objects (related to initializers), and I plan to investigate it further, possibly borrowing code from Jacques Garrigue. In the context of functors, the problem is that a lot of code would probably remain specific and still need to be written by hand, for example, the row types for classes... Tiphaine Turpin > > > At the moment, I have no idea which syntax is general enough and intuitive for us, > but as far as I understand we always follow similar encodings. > > With best regards, > Keiko > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs >