caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>
To: Jordan W <jordojw@gmail.com>
Cc: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>,
	Mailing List OCaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Explicit Arity with Polymorphic Variants
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:52:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPFanBEDXEi40cKiDcCj26eSkSEAaAVdTqef0QWaReYdPW==vQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPOA5_4enV0Ca44D5g_BspdNstAeGFSnkWkYaFLshZAVQg48jA@mail.gmail.com>

explicit_arity is an ugly hack. It is used by camlp[45] (whose revised
syntax has a superior currified constructor-parameter syntax and is
thus never confused about arities) to convert its internal AST into
the OCaml parse tree. It is not meant to be used by end-users, only by
camlp5 as a code-producing tool.

You ask why this was not extended to polymorphic variant. There was no
need, so nobody worked on it. Besides, I suspect making polymorphic
variant more complex is a bad idea -- and am quite certain relying on
an attribute there is a bad idea.


On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Jordan W <jordojw@gmail.com> wrote:
> My understanding was that this "explicit_arity" attribute allows precisely
> that - the capability to implement a specific syntax to distinguish between
> multiple arguments and just one argument (that may coincidentally be a
> tuple). My question is why this capability is not extended to polymorphic
> variants in the same way it has been extended to standard variant types.
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Jacques Garrigue
> <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>> The answer is simple: polymorphic variants can only accept one argument
>> (which may of course be a tuple). The other behavior would have required
>> a specific syntax for multi-parameter polymorphic variants, since there is
>> no information associated to the constructor for them.
>>
>> Jacques Garrigue
>>
>> On 2015/01/23 15:53, Jordan W wrote:
>> >
>> > The OCaml compiler allows distinguishing between variants that accept a
>> > single tuple and variant types that accept several parameters. What looks
>> > like a variant type accepting a tuple, is actually the later:
>> >
>> > type x = TwoSeparateArguments of int * int
>> > let tuple = (10,10)
>> > let thisWontWork = TwoSeparateArguments tuple;;
>> > >> Error: The constructor TwoSeparateArguments expects 2 argument(s),
>> > >> but is applied here to 1 argument(s)
>> >
>> > (* Notice the extra parens around the two ints *)
>> > type x = OneArgumentThatIsATuple of (int * int)
>> > let thisActuallyWorks = OneArgumentThatIsATuple tuple
>> >
>> > The extra parens distinguish at type definition time which of the two is
>> > intended.
>> >
>> > But OCaml does some automatic massaging of the data that you supply to
>> > constructor values.
>> > let _ = OneArgumentThatIsATuple (4, 5)
>> > let _ = TwoSeparateArguments (4, 5)
>> >
>> > No extra parens are required in this case. But OCaml does give you the
>> > ability to annotate patterns and expressions with an "explicit_arity"
>> > attribute which allows syntactic distinction between supplying two separate
>> > parameters vs. one that happens to be a tuple. This is important for other
>> > parser extensions that wish to treat the two distinctly. What OCaml allows
>> > (explicit_arity attribute) works well enough.
>> >
>> > The only problem is that there doesn't seem to be a way to utilize the
>> > same explicit_arity attributes with polymorphic variants. Such attributes
>> > are not acknowledged by the type system. Is this intended?
>> >
>> > Taking a quick look at typecore.ml, explicit_arity appears to be
>> > acknowledged on standard constructors but not polymorphic variants.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/6e85c2d956c8fd5b45acd70a27586e44bb3a3119/typing/typecore.ml
>> >
>> > It seems these should be brought to consistency. I will file a mantis
>> > issue unless anyone believes this is intended.
>> >
>> > Thank you in advance.
>> >
>> > Jordan
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-01-24  8:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-23  6:53 Jordan W
2015-01-23  8:03 ` Jacques Garrigue
2015-01-23  9:04   ` Jordan W
2015-01-23  9:56     ` David Allsopp
2015-01-24  8:52     ` Gabriel Scherer [this message]
2015-01-25  8:02       ` Jordan W
2015-01-25 10:11         ` David Allsopp
2015-01-25 19:57           ` Jordo
2015-01-26  4:05             ` Jacques Garrigue
2015-01-24  3:47   ` Jordan W
2015-01-24  8:24     ` David Allsopp

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAPFanBEDXEi40cKiDcCj26eSkSEAaAVdTqef0QWaReYdPW==vQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=gabriel.scherer@gmail.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp \
    --cc=jordojw@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).