From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pA4DRYLf001429
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:27:38 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlIGAKHns06CiAFmgWdsb2JhbABEmlOOGYEgIgEBFiYlgXIBAQUyAQVAEQshFg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAReHb7UkiSsEpgM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,455,1315173600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="116922500"
Received: from leb.cs.unibo.it ([130.136.1.102])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 04 Nov 2011 14:27:37 +0100
Received: from ssl.cs.unibo.it (ssl.cs.unibo.it [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: hidden)
	by leb.cs.unibo.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84EC42495 
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri,  4 Nov 2011 14:27:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EB3E848.2010508@cs.unibo.it>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:27:36 +0100
From: Matthias Puech <puech@cs.unibo.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <64822.143.164.102.13.1320411983.squirrel@webmail.mwn.de>
In-Reply-To: <64822.143.164.102.13.1320411983.squirrel@webmail.mwn.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] elegant subtyping?

Isn't that exactly what polymorphic variants are for?
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual006.html#toc36
Cheers,
     -m

Le 11/04/2011 02:06 PM, Markus Weißmann a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm writing on a compiler and want to subtype the "statements" that can
> occur in my code:
> At first I have an abstract syntax tree that can hold any statement of the
> language. From that I create a control flow graph that will only have
> non-control-flow statements (a true subset of the Ast-statements).
> Whats the best way to realize that?
>
> Basically I have:
>
> module Ast: type statement = Assign | Guard | Goto | Label
> module Cfg: type statement = Assign | Guard
>
>
> I see three -- not so elegant -- solutions to this:
>
> 1.) type-safe but imho quite ugly code:
> module Cfg: type statement = Assign | Guard
> module Ast: type statement = Base of Cfg.statement | Goto | Label
>
> 2.) use the same type for both and give up the safety that wrong types
> cannot show up in the Cfg
>
> 3.) use objects
>
> Did I miss the type-safe, elegant, module-based solution somehow? Or is
> 1.) as good as it gets?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> -Markus
>