Say we want to do something like what you mentioned:
>> potential use case would be, for example, being able write code that is
"functorized" over atomics and threads, with implementations like
>>a) pthreads and c11 atomics modules for production use
>>b) userspace threads and atomics modules,
The most natural way I can think of to implement
sets in ATS is the following one:
abstype
myset(a:t@ype) = ptr
extern
fun
{a:t@ype}
element(): myset(a)
extern
fun
{a:t@ype}
add(x0: a, xs: myset(a)): myset(a)
extern
fun
{a:t@ype}
member(x0: a, xs: myset(a)): bool
And here is a list-based
As a concrete example, an ATS port of the short ML example from this
message would be very helpful, even if none of the functions are actually
implemented.
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2004-August/014463.html
I'd also like to know which of the features of the ML module system
The following article may shed some light on this issue:
http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/EXAMPLE/EFFECTIVATS/DivideConquer/main.html
If you can tell me something a bit more concrete, I will probably be able
to say more.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:53:34 PM UTC-4, Andrew Knapp wrote:
>
Hello,
Chapter 3 of "A Tutorial on Programming Features in ATS" mentions that file
inclusion can be used to emulate SML or OCaml style functors in a limited
manner.
Is there an example of this technique somewhere? I would use the
record-based functor method, as described in the
