Re: [MirageOS-devel] CoHTTP Design: Polymorphic Variants

[Trevor Smith <trevorsummerssmith@xxxxxxxxx>]

Malcolm,

Thanks for your response. I think I am dense and am not quite understanding your point. In the example you gave the foo and bar both take and return unit. Can you explain a bit more your point?

Trevor

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Malcolm Matalka <mmatalka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The biggest reason is that it makes doing any monadic Result.t work
possible. Consider:

foo () >>= fun () ->
bar () >>= fun () ->
Cohttp.something () >>= function
 | Ok ... ->
 | Error ... ->


If every one of those functions returned a regular variant, you would
not be able to compose them like that.

Trevor Smith <trevorsummerssmith@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hello,
>
> I am curious to hear the design tradeoffs that were considered in choosing
> polymorphic variants vs variants in the code.mli types. I haven't really
> wrapped my head around why that decision was made, and am eager to learn
> more about real world use of polymorphic variants.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Trevor

> _______________________________________________
> MirageOS-devel mailing list
> MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel