Re: [Caml-list] Constructors are not functions

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

"David Allsopp" <dra-news@metastack.com> writes:

> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> <snip>
>> Then what about
>> 
>> type t1 = Bar of int * int
>> type t2 = Foo of (int * int)
>> 
>> If you treat constructors as functions taking one argument then
>
> But why (so arbitrarily) do this?

Because that was what the mentioned material said.

>> t1: int * int -> t1
>> t2: int * int -> t2
>
> If you look at each type definition and choose those most appropriate, then:
>
> t1: int -> int -> t1
> t2: int * int -> t2
>
> I don't see your point (but this is pre-coffee!)? The fact that you write
> [Bar(1, 2)] for a two-constructor variant tag and [bar 1 2] for a "2
> argument" function is just an (occasionally irritating) oddity of the OCaml
> syntax - it wouldn't have to affect any derived constructor functions here.

Actualy you do see my point. My point was that the appropriate type
should be used.

> However, the impracticality of importing the types from other interfaces
> (see Richard Jones post in this thread) has already revealed that this
> couldn't be done transparently in the way I'd initially thought so it's
> become a bit of a thought experiment anyway :o)
>
>
> David

MfG
        Goswin