Hi,
I'm puzzled about the type error returned with the following code (fix :
remove "fs"). Assuming value "mgu" and constructor "Var" are defined, is
it reasonable to report a type error about "subst" rather than the
unbound value "fs" ? I would expect the type-checker to first
successfully type the folded function, (with type (var_name * term) list
-> var_name * term -> (var_name * term) list) and then complain about
unbound value fs.
Tiphaine
let genereal_unify subst eqs =
List.fold_left (fun subst (x, t) -> mgu subst (Var x) t) subst fs eqs
File "prolog.ml", line 475, characters 42-47: (* i.e., second occurrence
of subst *))
Error: This expression has type 'a -> 'b but is here used with type
(var_name * term) list
_______________________________________________
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
