I'm looking at OCaml's functors. It looks to me pretty identical to the so called generic objects in C++/C#/Java. If you ignore Java's type erasion for now, and ignore the implementation details for C++ templates (I'm interested with the language feature), functors are quite indentical to generics.
If I understand it correctly, functor gives you a new set of functions from a type you provide, so that for example
List<MyClass>.GetType() != List<MyOtherClass>.GetType()
But you could roughly rewrite OCaml's
#module Set =
functor (Elt: ORDERED_TYPE) ->
struct
type element = Elt.t
type set = element list
let empty = []
let rec add x s =
match s with
[] -> [x]
| hd::tl ->
match Elt.compare x hd with
Equal -> s (* x is already in s *)
| Less -> x :: s (* x is smaller than all elements of s *)
| Greater -> hd :: add x tl
let rec member x s =
match s with
[] -> false
| hd::tl ->
match Elt.compare x hd with
Equal -> true (* x belongs to s *)
| Less -> false (* x is smaller than all elements of s *)
| Greater -> member x tl
end;;
into C#
class Set<T> where T : ISortable
{
private List<T> l = new List<T>();
static public Set<T> empty = new Set<T>();
public bool IsMember(T x) {return l.IndexOf(x) > -1;}
public void Add(T x) {l.Add(x);}
}
Sure there's a slight different since a functor affects a Module (which is just a bunch of types function and values definitions, similar to C#'s namespace).
But is it just it? Are functors merely generics applied to namespaces? Or is there any signifcant different between functors and generics which I'm missing.
Even if functors are just generics-for-namespace, what's the significant advantage of that approach? Classes can also be used as ad-hoc namespaces using nested classes.
