[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
| Subject: | [Caml-list] Petty complaints |
Hi,
I'd like to be able to treat the types "defined" in the Pervasives
module as if they really were defined there. This way I could reuse
type names like array, char, string, and list cleanly by referring to
the built-ins by their qualified names. Why doesn't it work that way now?
It would even be nice to be able to have the OCaml library modules be
referable by qualified names, like Pervasives.List, Pervasives.Array, etc...
Someone recently got bit by the mutable nature of the OCaml built in
strings. I looked at the mailing list and there was mention that a long
time ago Caml had immutable strings (ropes?) and arrays, but that no one
used them. I'm building some stuff using version arrays now (Martin
Erwig's Functional Graph Library) and while they're simple enough to write
in OCaml I bet built in immutable arrays would be much faster.
-- Brian
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr