On 3/30/2012 12:46 AM, François Bobot wrote:
But can't we consider that, for a semantic, syntax and typing perspective:
type t =
| A of string
| B of ({msg: string; mutable foo:int} as t2)
| C
is exactly the same thing than:
type t =
| A of string
| B of t2
| C
and t2 = {msg: string; mutable foo:int}
The only difference is that when you create a record of type t2 the tag
is directly the one of B in the first case and is the default tag for
record (the first tag if I remember well) in the second case. So in the
first case applying the constructor B is just the identity.
It is an interesting idea to give an explicit type to the record
argument, allowing it to be manipulated as a first-class value.
Instead of requiring an explicit name, one could introduce a syntax to
refer to the implicit record declaration for a record constructor. For
instance, after defining:
type t =
| A of string
| B of {msg:string; mutable foo:int}
| C
one could refer to the type t/B, which would behave like a normal record
type (with a runtime representation such that applying B is the identity).
The only disadvantage, I see, compared to Alain Frisch's proposition is
that two records share with difficulty the same field name. But special
case can be made when we know the record type thanks to the constructor
eg B {x=...}, C {x=...}.
We should rather look for a general solution to record field
overloading. I think that changes introduced for GADTs in the typing of
patterns makes it quite easy to use propagated type information to
disambiguate between record types sharing the same field names (and
similarly for sum types sharing the same constructor names).
Alain
--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
