--- /dev/null
+[[!toc]]
+
+Types, OCAML
+------------
+
+OCAML has type inference: the system can often infer what the type of
+an expression must be, based on the type of other known expressions.
+
+For instance, if we type
+
+ # let f x = x + 3;;
+
+The system replies with
+
+ val f : int -> int = <fun>
+
+Since `+` is only defined on integers, it has type
+
+ # (+);;
+ - : int -> int -> int = <fun>
+
+The parentheses are there to turn off the trick that allows the two
+arguments of `+` to surround it in infix (for linguists, SOV) argument
+order. That is,
+
+ # 3 + 4 = (+) 3 4;;
+ - : bool = true
+
+In general, tuples with one element are identical to their one
+element:
+
+ # (3) = 3;;
+ - : bool = true
+
+though OCAML, like many systems, refuses to try to prove whether two
+functional objects may be identical:
+
+ # (f) = f;;
+ Exception: Invalid_argument "equal: functional value".
+
+Oh well.
+
+
+Booleans in OCAML, and simple pattern matching
+----------------------------------------------
+
+Where we would write `true 1 2` and expect it to evaluate to `1`, in
+OCAML boolean types are not functions (equivalently, are functions
+that take zero arguments). Choices are made as follows:
+
+ # if true then 1 else 2;;
+ - : int = 1
+
+The types of the `then` clause and of the `else` clause must be the
+same.
+
+The `if` construction can be re-expressed by means of the following
+pattern-matching expression:
+
+ match <bool expression> with true -> <expression1> | false -> <expression2>
+
+That is,
+
+ # match true with true -> 1 | false -> 2;;
+ - : int = 1
+
+Compare with
+
+ # match 3 with 1 -> 1 | 2 -> 4 | 3 -> 9;;
+ - : int = 9
+
+Unit
+----
+
+All functions in OCAML take exactly one argument. Even this one:
+
+ # let f x y = x + y;;
+ # f 2 3;;
+ - : int = 5
+
+Here's how to tell that `f` has been curry'd:
+
+ # f 2;;
+ - : int -> int = <fun>
+
+After we've given our `f` one argument, it returns a function that is
+still waiting for another argument.
+
+There is a special type in OCAML called `unit`. There is exactly one
+object in this type, written `()`. So
+
+ # ();;
+ - : unit = ()
+
+Just as you can define functions that take constants for arguments
+
+ # let f 2 = 3;;
+ # f 2;;
+ - : int = 3;;
+
+you can also define functions that take the unit as its argument, thus
+
+ # let f () = 3;;
+ val f : unit -> int = <fun>
+
+Then the only argument you can possibly apply `f` to that is of the
+correct type is the unit:
+
+ # f ();;
+ - : int = 3
+
+Let's have some fn: think of `rec` as our `Y` combinator. Then
+
+ # let rec f n = if (0 = n) then 1 else (n * (f (n - 1)));;
+ val f : int -> int = <fun>
+ # f 5;;
+ - : int = 120
+
+We can't define a function that is exactly analogous to our ω.
+We could try `let rec omega x = x x;;` what happens? However, we can
+do this:
+
+ # let rec omega x = omega x;;
+
+By the way, what's the type of this function?
+If you then apply this omega to an argument,
+
+ # omega 3;;
+
+the interpreter goes into an infinite loop, and you have to control-C
+to break the loop.
+
+Oh, one more thing: lambda expressions look like this:
+
+ # (fun x -> x);;
+ - : 'a -> 'a = <fun>
+ # (fun x -> x) true;;
+ - : book = true
+
+(But `(fun x -> x x)` still won't work.)
+
+So we can try our usual tricks:
+
+ # (fun x -> true) omega;;
+ - : bool = true
+
+OCAML declined to try to evaluate the argument before applying the
+functor. But remember that `omega` is a function too, so we can
+reverse the order of the arguments:
+
+ # omega (fun x -> true);;
+
+Infinite loop.
+
+Now consider the following differences:
+
+ # let test = omega omega;;
+ [Infinite loop, need to control c out]
+
+ # let test () = omega omega;;
+ val test : unit -> 'a = <fun>
+
+ # test;;
+ - : unit -> 'a = <fun>
+
+ # test ();;
+ [Infinite loop, need to control c out]
+
+We can use functions that take arguments of type unit to control
+execution. In Scheme parlance, functions on the unit type are called
+*thunks* (which I've always assumed was a blend of "think" and "chunk").
+