> type _ t =
> | IntLit : int -> int t
> | BoolLit : bool -> bool t
> | Pair : 'a t * 'b t -> ('a * 'b) t
> | App : ('a -> 'b) t * 'a t -> 'b t
> | Abs : ('a -> 'b) -> ('a -> 'b) t
> There's something "Haskellish" about this syntax, in the sense that type
> constructors are portrayed as being like functions.
Indeed IIRC OCaml does not accept "App" as an expression (you have to
provide arguments to the construct). Maybe this is a good opportunity
to lift this restriction.
> While this does make sense in Haskell, in Ocaml it feels a bit out of
> place, because you cannot, for example, partially apply
> a type constructor.
The types above don't allow partial applications either. They use the
OCaml/SML style of constructors were partial application is not possible
because the various arguments are not provided in a curried way.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
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
