From: Jacques Carette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jacques Garrigue wrote:
The message is maybe not clear enough: for pattern-matching and
inheritance, you need an exact variant type, i.e. a type whose lower
and upper bounds are identical.
Indeed - I would suggest that the error include some clearer
Hello,
I have been unable to cleanly specify the code below (or something
equivalent) without resorting to Obj.magic. (In the example below,
Boxes.B.t as referenced by the Validator module would ideally simply
be Boxes.t, and Validator would not see the submodules;)
Can I look at the code
I'm not sure there's confluence if you factor in the resources required
for such reduction, though.
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:47 +0200, DooMeeR wrote:
What are the advantages/disadvantages when comparing a fork to a spoon?
From Church's thesis, one can easily answer this question: they are
Hello,
Can I look at the code which does not type check without Obj.magic?
Ideally something like if I comment out Obj.magic then I get a type
error, and if I comment it in then the code type checks, so that I can
identify the point of the issue? (In the context of this simplified
example of
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 02:42:43PM +0200, Luc Maranget wrote:
/usr/bin/open (?)
...which exists on Mac OS X.
Mark
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives:
We've set up a mailing list to continue discussion of bitstring. It's
not just for developers though, if you'd like to ask user-oriented
questions too we'd be glad to help.
http://groups.google.com/group/bitstring
http://code.google.com/p/bitstring/
