On 3 avr, 20:22, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The appropriate call is selected by the compiler after monomorphization. So > there is no ambiguity or need for type annotations etc.
Well you need to tell the compiler at least once otherwise he won't know that e.g. you want to use physical equality on the strings for this set instead of say structural equality. As a side effect this can be the source of interesting and hard to catch bugs (forgot to coerce to the right subtype) that you won't get with the more explicit functor way. As always the less explicit you are the harder it is to reunderstand or find bugs in your code. I always find it interesting that people use terseness vs explicitness as a criterion to judge programming languages. In fact programming language designer should create them with code reading and not code typing in mind, but since lines of code to achieve a task seem to be the (unreliable) metric among programmers, this won't happen anytime soon. Best, Daniel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ocaml-developer" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ocaml-developer?hl=en For other OCaml forums, see http://caml.inria.fr/resources/forums.en.html -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
