I see now. The syntax is just strange coming from OCaml. The declaration there is the OCaml equivalent of:
type t = A | B | C of int | D of (int * string) Sandro On 3/6/07, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Browsing the NekoML docs: > > http://nekovm.org/doc/nekoml > > A "union type" declaration looks identical to the declaration of a > "record". Is this correct? I don't see a discriminating tag anywhere. They are not identical. A union type can have several disjoint contructors (A,B,C,D in the example) while the record must have all the fields correctly set (x + y in the example). Nicolas -- Neko : One VM to run them all (http://nekovm.org)
-- Neko : One VM to run them all (http://nekovm.org)
