[
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: | 2001-04-24 (15:23) |
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