Jacques Garrigue wrote: > The reason is mostly wrong :-) That'll teach me to comment on type theory on this list :o)
> And neither polymorphic variants nor object require type anotations in > ocaml; they just make it much more painful to understand error > messages. Though I'm confused by this - I thought that polymorphic methods in classes (a part of the object system) do require type annotations and there are cases with polymorphic variants where coercions (which I'd regard as a type annotation?) must be explicitly written for a valid program to type. I wasn't trying to say that all uses of them require type annotations, just that there are occasions where you *have* to use them whereas for "core" ML you never *have* to include a type annotation for *any* valid program - your types just might be more general than you expect/want. Or am I still barking up the wrong tree? David _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
