OCaml explicit type signatures

syntax types ocaml type-inference
Xodarap picture Xodarap · May 15, 2011 · Viewed 23.2k times · Source

In Haskell, it is considered good practice to explicitly declare the type signature of your functions, even though it can (usually) be inferred. It seems like this isn't even possible in OCaml, e.g. 

val add : int -> int -> int ;;

gives me an error. (Although I can make type modules which give only signatures.)

  1. Am I correct in that this isn't possible to do in OCaml?
  2. If so, why? The type system of OCaml doesn't seem that incredibly different from Haskell.

Answer

Don Stewart picture Don Stewart · May 15, 2011

OCaml has two ways of specifying types, they can be done inline:

let intEq (x : int) (y : int) : bool = ...

or they can be placed in an interface file, as you have done:

val intEq : int -> int -> bool

I believe the latter is preferred, since it more cleanly separates the specification (type) from the implementation (code).

References: OCaml for Haskellers

Related questions

What's the difference between 'int?' and 'int' in C#?

I am 90% sure I saw this answer on stackoverflow before, in fact I had never seen the "int?" syntax before seeing it here, but no matter how I search I can't find the previous post, and it's driving me crazy. …

Read More
Returning function pointer type

Often I find the need to write functions which return function pointers. Whenever I do, the basic format I use is: typedef int (*function_type)(int,int); function_type getFunc() { function_type test; test /* = ...*/; return test; } However this can get …

Read More
What does :: do in PostgreSQL?

I have seen :: in variety of places involving postgres code I have seen on the net. For example: SELECT '{apple,cherry apple, avocado}'::text[]; It seems to be some sort of cast. What exactly is :: in postgres and …

Read More