Home/ Questions/Q 4609752
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-22T01:02:01+00:00

In Haskell, it is considered good practice to explicitly declare the type signature of

  • 0

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.
Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    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

    • 0