Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Constructors in camllight vs. ocaml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@i...>
Subject: Re: Constructors in camllight vs. ocaml
> Why do camllight and ocaml treat constructors differently?
> In camllight I can write
>     #type ip = Pair of int * int;;
>    Type ip defined.
> and the system recognizes Pair automatically as a value
>     #Pair;;
>     - : int * int -> ip = <fun>
> Doing the same in ocaml (1.03) I get:
>         # type ip = Pair of int * int;;
>         type ip = Pair of int * int
>         # Pair;;
>         The constructor Pair expects 2 argument(s),
>         but is here applied to 0 argument(s)
> I do prefer the behavior of camllight especially for porting SML code.

The basic reason is the module system, but let me elaborate.

For reasonable performance, a datatype definition such as

                type ip = Pair of int * int

must not represent values of type ip literally, i.e. as a block tagged
"Pair" pointing to a two-field block representing a pair of integers.
It is crucial performance-wise to fold the two blocks into one block
tagged "Pair" holding the two integers. Pretty much all ML compilers
do this.

Without modules, the compiler can still maintain the illusion that
Pair is really a one-argument constructor containing a pair, and not a
two-argument constructor. Accesses such as

        match x with Pair p -> p

are not terribly efficient (the pair is actually reconstructed on the
right-hand side in Caml Light), but they work.

The big problem is with modules and data abstraction. Namely, should
we allow the following structure

        struct type p = int * int
               type ip = Pair of int * int

to match the following signature

        sig   type p
              type ip = Pair of p

If you believe the SML/Camllight illusion that constructors have 0 or
1 argument, then the answer should be "yes". However, this causes no
end of trouble in a compiler, because code typechecked against the
signature above assumes that values of type ip are one-field blocks
pointing to a value of type p, while code internal to the structure
assumes two-field blocks from which values of type p must be

This problem has plagued the SML/NJ implementation for quite a while,
and the solutions that have been proposed are all extremely

I think it's not worth the effort to maintain the illusion that
constructors have 0 or 1 argument. Let's just face the truth and
consider them as N-ary, as in Prolog.

Incidentally, if you *really* need a constructor with one argument
that is a pair, you can always declare it as

        type p = int * int
        type ip = Pair of p

This will direct the OCaml compiler to use the proper representation for a
one-argument constructor. Of course, that representation will occupy
twice as much space as that of "type ip = Pair of int * int", and be
twice as slow to access.


- Xavier Leroy