Re: [Caml-list] When is a function polymorphic?

[Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com>]

Interesting.  I guess this is best understood as a limitation of the
type-checking algorithm.  Does anyone know if there are any plans to
remove this limitation?  Are there fundamental reasons why it would be
difficult to do so?

Yaron



On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:42:53 +0900 (JST), Jacques Garrigue
<garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com>
> 
> > I think I screwed up the original examples a bit.  I think the effect
> > I'm looking at doesn't depend on the "as" notation in particular.
> > Here's another example that doesn't use "as":
> >
> > # function Some x -> Some () | None -> None;;
> > - : 'a option -> unit option = <fun>
> > # function Some x -> Some () | x -> x;;
> > - : unit option -> unit option = <fun>
> >
> > The reason I want this is for the following example.  Consider some
> > complicated union type with a single parameter:
> >
> > type 'a foo = A of 'a | B of int | C of string * string | ... | ZZ of float
> >
> > I want a function that converts an 'a foo to a unit foo.  I tried to
> > write it this way:
> >
> > function A _ -> A () | x -> x
> >
> > But this ends up having type: unit foo -> unit foo, which isn't what I
> > want at all.  Any idea of how to achieve this cleanly?
> 
> The effect you are looking for does depend on the "as" notation.
> Here is how to write it:
> 
> function A _ -> A () | (B _ | C _ | ... | ZZ _) as x -> x
> 
> Note that the exhaustivity checker will correctly detect that you
> second case is complete, and the pattern-matching compiler will just
> branch on wheter the tag is A or not. I.e. no code will be produced to
> check the second pattern.
> 
> As others pointed, polymorphic variants allow you to write it in a
> shorter way, because you can define a type abbreviation for the
> remaining cases, but in the end it uses the same "as" mechanism.
> 
> Jacques Garrigue
>