Re: [Caml-list] strange behavior with record type definition

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

* Florent:

> Ok but with these two record types defined :
>    type t0 = { x : int ; y : int } ;;
>    type t1 = { x : int } ;;
>
> There is no ambiguity about the following expression's type:
>    { x = 0 ; y = 0 } ;;
> Why can't the t0 type be infered ?

Other common cases are ambiguous, for example:

  let proj_x v = v.x

Standard ML provides what you want, and you must specify all record
fields unless the record type can be inferred by other means.  For
example,

  fun proj_x v = #x v

or 
  fun proj_x { x = x, ... } = x

does not type-check, you must write:

  fun proj_x { x = x, y = _ } = x

This becomes quite cumbersome if there are more than two or three
components.  There is a workaround using datatypes, i.e. write

  datatype t0 = T0 of { x : int, y : int }

and

  fun proj_x (T0 { x = x, ... }) = x

So both approaches have their drawbacks.