Category talk:Standard ML

From Rosetta Code

Standard ML typing

Standard ML's types are a mix of explicit and implicit. You can explicitly type things if you want, but the language features (and requires) a strong type inference engine so it can usually work out the exact type of everything for you without much assistance. As a language it's interesting particularly because it's mainly about constructive types and a very high degree of genericity. Not quite sure how that maps onto the Typing/Expression feature classes though; they need some descriptions of what they mean… —Donal Fellows 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those categories were just made from the Language Comparison Table. I'm not exactly sure what "partially implicit" means either, but someone marked it a couple times on the LCT. If you know about any language's features could you add them to the category page of that language? If you get more than 3 or 4 of them, could you put it on the LCT? I just filled in the SML stuff from what I could (kind of) figure out from the WP article. If you think that a language doesn't fit into the categories that are there, make a new one (it is a wiki, you know). --Mwn3d 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Standard ML has basically the same typing system as OCaml, which is pretty much the same as in Haskell. So I would expect all those languages to be listed under the same categories for typing system. --Spoon! 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You know better than I do. Go ahead and change it. --Mwn3d 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lately I've been adding mLite entries. I've been putting them together with Standard ML under the one category of ML. At this point there's nothing in the system backing up the use of ML. Should I continue to merge them? mLite and Standard ML are quite similar but do differ markedly from time to time. Should other ML-ish languages get sucked in as well, e.g. Caml and OCaml, or are they sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment? Axtens (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)