1 Jul 2001 07:32
Re: "Re: A G'Caml question" + additional info
Patrick M Doane <patrick <at> watson.org>
2001-07-01 05:32:56 GMT
2001-07-01 05:32:56 GMT
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Brian Rogoff wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Patrick M Doane wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, John Max Skaller wrote: > > > G'caml makes it easier to write readable algorithms, > > > and to do 'cut and paste' genericity. But it can't do what > > > you can do in C++. > > I agree. Although I'm not advocating that it do everything you can do in > > C++. > > Less talk, more coding examples please. Here's a simple example motivating my thoughts in this discussion: generic get = case | string -> int -> char => String.get let print_first x = get x 0 generic get = case | include get | $a array -> int -> $a => Array.get ;; print_first [|0|] As far as I can tell, there are no current plans for this kind of code to work with G'caml. > GCaml polymorphism is remarkably > easy to use. A while ago, when there was some discussion of overloading(Continue reading)
But what I was trying to do was precisely to avoid linking the
bytecode at build time. Is that impossible?
RSS Feed