> let myFunction delta {<x; y; ..>} = x + y + delta

> let myFunction delta o = o#(x + y + delta)

Calling methods is an effectful operation, so you need to specify when (and
how many time) the methods are called for those local-open or
pattern-matching syntax.

It is intuitively clear to me that the semantics of
  let {< x; y; ... }> = obj in body
should be equivalent to
  let x = obj#x and y = obj#y in body
(notice that the other methods of the same object are not forced)

I don't think there is a reasonable semantics for obj#(x + y):
- you really don't want to reason on the free variables that are inside the
parentheses
- you may not know what the type of `obj` is yet (let foo obj = obj#(x +
y)), so you don't know what its methods are.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 02:45:19PM +0100, Philippe Wang wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just some quick thoughts about 3.: it's not object matching! It looks
> > a little like it, but it's not at all, in the sense that it's not at
> > all like the rest of OCaml's pattern matching stuff.
> > I would somewhat find it useful, but probably too misleading and
> > confusing to encourage having this feature.
> >
> > I was going to say it's not shorter or easier to write it this way, but
> actually
> >     let myFunction delta {<x; y; ..>} = x + y + delta
> > is a little shorter than something like
> >     let myFunction delta (o: <x:'a; y:'b; ..>) = o#x + o#y + delta
> > but, still, I don't really see something good in there.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Philippe Wang
>
> How about this syntax (similar to local open of modules):
>
> let myFunction delta o = o#(x + y + delta)
>
> MfG
>         Goswin
>
>
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Jordan W <jordojw@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've encountered several situations where I would have benefited from
> the
> > > following features. I am curious what some of the OCaml core developers
> > > think about them.
> > >
> > > 1. Object punning:
> > > I understand that object punning on "functional updates" to objects was
> > > recently added to trunk. This is a nice consistency, but I haven't
> found a
> > > way to perform object punning on methods or values for object
> *expressions*.
> > >
> > >     let x = 10
> > >     let y = 20
> > >     let o = object
> > >       method x
> > >       method y
> > >     end
> > >
> > > Which would create an object with two methods x, y that return x and y
> > > respectively. It may be easy to apply the same convention to object
> values.
> > >
> > > 2. Object extension: I believe that OCaml immediate objects are fairly
> > > under-appreciated, and most people could find useful applications for
> them
> > > (at least) in the form of row polymorphic records. However, there are
> > > several features that would make them even more powerful. The feature
> I long
> > > for the most is object extension (on immediate objects). OCaml has
> support
> > > for extending objects (inheritance), but only via classes. I
> understand that
> > > implementing this may complicate dynamic dispatch and/or use of
> `self`, but
> > > perhaps some compromise could be reached - something like a limited
> form of
> > > `inherit`, that is allowed to have different semantics and works on
> > > immediate objects (at least in the case when objects are being used as
> > > row-polymorphic records).
> > >
> > >     let oldObj = object method x = 20 method greet = "hi" end
> > >     let newObj = {<oldObj with method x = 10 >}
> > >
> > > This is similar to Andreas Rossberg's Record Extensions in SuccessorML.
> > >
> > > New languages are picking up these extensible record features as
> described
> > > in Daan Leijen's paper [Extensible Records With Scoped Labels] and I
> suspect
> > > this feature will be of interest to many others.
> > >
> > > 3. Object matching.
> > >
> > >     let myFunction delta {<x; y; ..>} = x + y + delta
> > >
> > >     let myFunction delta o = match o with
> > >         {<x; y; .. >} -> x + y + delta
> > >
> > >
> > > This may be relatively easy to implement (my reasoning is that I
> believe it
> > > could even be solved at the parsing stage (not that it would be a good
> idea
> > > to do so)).
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for listening. I'm curious if anyone's given thought to
> implementing
> > > these, and eager to hear thoughts/suggestions.
> > >
> > > Jordan
> >
> > --
> > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>