On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Dawid Toton
<d0@wp.pl> wrote:
On 03/28/2011 08:35 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:34 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
>
>> you can obtain the same behavior by using objects instead of records:
> Yes, that used to work very well... until I was forced to switch to records :-).
>
When I had this problem I used one common record type:
type ('foo, 'bar') common =
{foo : 'foo
;bar : 'bar
;x : int
}
type with_bar = (unit, string) common
type with_foo = (double, unit) common
However, I can see that with more different independent types this is
going to be quite ugly.
Dawid