You can abuse inline
and member constraints to do duck typing, which gets you some of the benefits of mixins. For example, you could translate this Ruby code (taken from this tutorial):
module Debug
def whoAmI?
"#{self.type.name} (\##{self.id}): #{self.to_s}"
end
end
class Phonograph
include Debug
# ...
end
class EightTrack
include Debug
# ...
end
ph = Phonograph.new("West End Blues")
et = EightTrack.new("Surrealistic Pillow")
ph.whoAmI? » "Phonograph (#537766170): West End Blues"
et.whoAmI? » "EightTrack (#537765860): Surrealistic Pillow"
to this:
type Phonograph(id, name) =
member x.Id : int = id
override x.ToString() = name
type EightTrack(id, name) =
member x.Id : int = id
override x.ToString() = name
module Debug =
let inline whoAmI x =
sprintf "%s (%d) : %s"
(^T : (member GetType : unit -> Type) x).Name
(^T : (member Id : int with get) x)
(^T : (member ToString : unit -> string) x)
let ph = Phonograph(537766170, "West End Blues")
let et = EightTrack(537765860, "Surrealistic Pillow")
Debug.whoAmI ph //"Phonograph (537766170) : West End Blues"
Debug.whoAmI et //"EightTrack (537765860) : Surrealistic Pillow"
It has the (arguable) advantage over extension methods of not requiring a common base class or interface. Regarding your previous question about the open
keyword, you could have several modules defining whoAmI
and the one open
ed last will shadow previous ones. In that way you can sort of "mix in" which module you want. The F# core library uses a similar approach with checked operators.