OCaml's modules, like Java's interfaces, but unlike Lisp generic function protocols or Haskell typeclasses, suffer from the painful "can't retroactively make something conform to an interface" problem. Particularly acute for free software libraries extending each other.
Ok, so OCaml modules are slightly better than Java classes in this way, while being miles behind Java (not to speak about better languages) in lacking usable inheritance, definition override and specialization, method combinations, etc.
-
-
There is no let binding in the module system by design (for better or for worse). You are supposed to use the object system here. Have you tried it? In my experience, while clearly behind clos wrt method combinations, it's very usable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!