Re: [Caml-list] Troublesome nodes

[Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@yahoo.com>]

Hi,

Thanks for the clarification, Jacques.  So I guess my initial interpretation
of 'private' was correct.  But is 'private' also applicable when a type
is declared using a constraint?  In my Node module, for example, type 't'
is declared abstract in the signature:

type (+'a, 'b) t constraint 'a = [< super_node_t ]

In the implementation, the type is declared as follows:

type (+'a, 'b) t = 'a constraint 'a = [< super_node_t ]

Is it possible in this case to make signature equal to the implementation
except for a 'private' declaration?  (Being able to pattern-match on values
of type 't' would be very handy, that is why I would prefer to use 'private'
instead of making the type fully abstract).

Note: I am running Ocaml 3.11+dev12.  Jeremy just sent a message where
he reports that the compiler behaviour in this matter changed between
3.10 and 3.11.

Thank you for your time,
Dario Teixeira



      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html