From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA20247; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:27:49 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA11523 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:27:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cgpsrv1.cis.mcmaster.ca (cgpsrv1.cis.McMaster.CA [130.113.64.21]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h7LDRkf10538 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:27:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [65.48.130.10] (account ) by cgpsrv1.cis.mcmaster.ca (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0.6) with HTTP id 51153452; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:27:45 -0400 From: "Jacques Carette" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] does class polymorphism need to be so complicated? To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: caml-list@inria.fr X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0.6 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:27:45 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030821083400B.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; jacques:01 caml-list:01 naively:01 biblio:99 coercions:01 garrigue:01 pottier:01 thread:02 explicit:03 classes:03 wrote:03 fpottier:03 object:03 types:03 complicated:04 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Jacques Garrigue wrote: > From: "Jacques Carette" > > Indeed - but that rather begs the question of why are classes and rows > > different, as they (naively perhaps) seem so ripe for 'unification'. > > > I'm not sure of what you mean by rows. > At least, in the above examples, rows were used as a name for object > types. By 'rows' I meant the type of that name referred to in say François Pottier, "A Constraint-Based Presentation and Generalization of Rows" (available from http://pauillac.inria.fr/~fpottier/biblio/pottier.html). The sub-typing of classes and of rows seem to me to be highly related. Treating classes as rows would seem to me to allow the kind of polymorphism that is being asked for in this thread (ie with no need for explicit coercions). Jacques C. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners