From: Andrew K. <ak...@mi...> - 2001-09-26 13:37:36
|
Andreas,=20 Whatever the glitches in the Definition, as a user of SML as well as an implementer I would like to see fewer of my programs rejected by the type-checker. In particular, I dislike the fact that some implementations won't accept structure STR :> SIG =3D struct val settings =3D ref [] ... end despite the constraints on "settings" imposed by the rest=20 of the structure ("...") or the signature SIG. Furthermore, I find it unpleasant that the typing of a=20 program might be influenced by the presence of a semicolon=20 separator which otherwise can be regarded as optional. There are two questions: (1) What does one do about types that are still "undetermined" at the level of the unit-of-compilation (e.g. "..." or "SIG" above do not resolve the type of "settings"). Instantiating with something arbitrary (e.g. unit) is just too confusing so I would vote for rejecting such programs as ambiguous. (2) What does one do in a top-level-loop environment?=20 - Andrew. |