That's pretty cool, everyone and his mother has a solution to the proposed problem. I think, for the sake of exhaustivity, i can share my own weird hack. It can express all power of 2 sizes (for example add, mul and div). It uses a nested data type. type 'a size = | Word of 'a | DWord of ('a * 'a) size type n16 = int size type n32 = (n16 * n16) size type n64 = (n32 * n32) size add : 'a size -> 'a size -> 'a size mul : 'a size -> 'a size -> ('a * 'a) size div : ('a * 'a) size -> 'a size -> ('a size * 'a size) - damien Le 26/09/2011 à 13:42, "Jocelyn Sérot" à écrit : >Hello, > >I've recently come across a problem while writing a domain specific >language for hardware synthesis (http://wwwlasmea.univ-bpclermont.fr/Personnel/Jocelyn.Serot/caph.html >). >The idea is to extend the type system to accept "size" annotations for >int types (it could equally apply to floats). >The target language (VHDL in this case) accept "generic" functions, >operating on ints with variable bit width and I'd like to reflect this >in the source language. > >For instance, I'd like to be able to declare : > >val foo : int * int -> int > >(where the type int is not annotated, i.e. "generic") > >so that, when applied to, let say : > >val x : int<16> >val y : int<16> > >(where <16> is a size annotation), > >like in > >let z = foo (x,y) > >then the compiler will infer type int<16> for z > >In fact, the exact type signature for foo would be : > >val foo : int * int -> int > >where "s" would be a "size variable" (playing a role similar to a type >variable in, for ex : val map : 'a list -> ('a ->'b) -> 'b list). > >In a sense, it has to do with the theory of sized types (Hughes and >Paretto, .. ) and dependent types (DML for ex), but my goal is far >less ambitious. >In particular, i dont want to do _computations_ (1) on the size (and, >a fortiori, don't want to prove anything on the programs). >So sized types / dependent types seems a big machinery for a >relatively small goal. >My intuition is that this is just a variant of polymorphism in which >the variables ranged over are not types but integers. >Before testing this intuition by trying to implement it, I'd like to >know s/o has already tackled this problem. >Any pointer - including "well, this is trivial" ! ;-) - will be >appreciated. > >Best wishes > >Jocelyn > >(1) i.e. i dont bother supporting declarations like : val mul : int >* int -> int <2*n> ... > > > >-- >Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: >https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list >Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners >Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > -- Mail created using EssentialPIM Free - www.essentialpim.com