From: Martin J. <mar...@em...> - 2004-04-28 08:50:14
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Henri DF wrote: > > > > > thanks for the pointer. i (naively) thought that anything which "takes > > > away > > > polymorphism" could only improve efficiency, and that this would extend > to > > > functors. > > > > > > [OT] i wonder when there is ever a case for functors then.. > > > > [...] > > On my wish list: int, bool, float, and char modules. These would take a > > lot of the pain out of using functors. I would be happy too if these modules could exist. Char already exists, right? > You forgot : > (int * int) > (string * int list) > (int * char * bool) > ... > ... > ... > Since there is so much (infinity) core-types, we can't declare module types > for all of them, so set is broken :'( Not I am sorry, these are not essential types. int, char, string, float and bool are essential. I understand that the standard library could not be extended because of the limited human resources at INRIA, but there is plenty of space here for things of secondary importance. Martin |