Is there a description somewhere of the semantics of your language change?
More specifically:
1. You link to a paper by Andres Löh and Ralf Hinze, how close are you
of their proposal?
They mention open datatypes and functions, you propose open datatypes,
but not open functions? That would be
On 04/12/2012 04:16 PM, Philippe Veber wrote:
Isn't this a good use case for polymorphic variants too ?
I don't see how to use polymorphic variants here. The message bus
itself need to provide functions like:
val dispatch: message - unit
val register_listener: (message - unit) - unit
1. You link to a paper by Andres Löh and Ralf Hinze, how close are you
of their proposal?
They mention open datatypes and functions, you propose open datatypes,
but not open functions? That would be understandable because open
pattern matching is a bit fishy (best-fit matching etc...).
I think
On 04/12/2012 07:07 PM, Leo P White wrote:
Just like exceptions, they are represented as constructors whose first
field points to an address that is allocated by the extension definition
to represent that extension. They have a special tag value so that
structural equality knows to compare the
On Apr 12 2012, Alain Frisch wrote:
Do we really need a new special tag? Why not use Object_tag and
represent slots as blocks of size 2 (constructor name + unique integer
as the second field)? This would have the following consequences (which
are the expected ones):
I hadn't really
Hi,
If anyone is interested, I have written a new version of my patch to
add open extensible types to OCaml. It is available at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ocamlopen/
The only new feature is allowing variant declarations to be made
extensible. This allows declarations like:
open type
