On 29-10-2010, Jacques Le Normand wrote:
>
> I didn't know about this alternate syntax; can you please describe it?
> cheers
> --Jacques
It is on page 14:
http://gallium.inria.fr/~xleroy/talks/cug2008.pdf
And around 14:22 in the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1704671501085578312&
> 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
On 31-10-2010, Wojciech Daniel Meyer wrote:
> bluestorm writes:
>
>> It was actually the case in Caml Light : each datatype constructor
>> implicitly declared a constructor function with the same name. I
>> don't exactly know why this feature was dropped in Objective Caml,
>> but I think I rememb
On 31-10-2010, Lukasz Stafiniak wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> On 31-10-2010, Wojciech Daniel Meyer wrote:
>>> bluestorm writes:
>>>
It was actually the case in Caml Light : each datatype constructor
implicitly declared a constructor function with
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Monnier
wrote:
> > 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"
Stefan Monnier writes:
> 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.
>
I wish to see first class data constructors in OCaml someday.
>
> The types above don't allow par
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM, bluestorm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Stefan Monnier > wrote:
>
>> > 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 : ('
On 2010/10/30, at 8:01, Jacques Le Normand wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM, bluestorm wrote:
> Note that, as in Jacques's examples, the constructor function was not
> curryfied. (type t = A of bool * int) would generate a function (A : bool *
> int -> t). It doesn't help the already tri
On 30/10/2010 1:14 AM, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
On 2010/10/30, at 8:01, Jacques Le Normand wrote:
Note that, as in Jacques's examples, the constructor function was not curryfied.
(type t = A of bool * int) would generate a function (A : bool * int -> t).
Actually, curryfied constructors are no
Hi,
> > 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 i
Hi,
> If the risk of confusion with constructors-as-functions is deemed
> problematic, a syntax like
> App of ('a -> 'b) t * 'a t : 'b t
> seems OK too.
> Actually this would have the advantage of allowing the scope of
> existential variables to be explicit. I.e. one could write
> App of 'a.
Hi,
> If I misunderstood you, then I still misunderstand you: the App
> constructor you quoted took only 1 "argument" (a pair), so you can't
> "partially apply it", and that's from the type declaration.
> IOW the type declaration you quoted is *not* curried.
Now I get what you mean, and there's d
bluestorm writes:
> It was actually the case in Caml Light : each datatype constructor
> implicitly declared a constructor function with the same name. I
> don't exactly know why this feature was dropped in Objective Caml,
> but I think I remember (from a previous discussion) that people
> weren'
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> On 31-10-2010, Wojciech Daniel Meyer wrote:
>> bluestorm writes:
>>
>>> It was actually the case in Caml Light : each datatype constructor
>>> implicitly declared a constructor function with the same name. I
>>> don't exactly know why thi
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>
> Function names and values are "low id" in OCaml (first letter must be
> uncapitalized). If you try to define "let MyConstr = 0" in an OCaml
> toplevel, you will get a syntax error...
In unmodified toplevel, but the whole point is to use
15 matches
Mail list logo
