[
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: | Patrick M Doane <patrick@w...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Evaluation Order |
It sounds like a lot of what you're describing comes with Haskell's monadic IO system. If you have an expression e1 + e2 where e1 and e2 could be side effecting expressions, the type system forces you to write: do v1 <- e1 v2 <- e2 return v1 + v2 If you're already familiar with Haskell, were there additional properties you were looking for? Patrick On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, David McClain wrote: > Earlier, I stated that there were no reference vars in the program. That's > strictly true only of the OCaml portion of the code. However, the C/C++ core > does maintain a mutable state and that is the reason for evaluation order > dependencies. > > It would seem that the compiler could automatically spot side effecting > functions and propagate that attribute by noticing when reference vars are > modified, when arrays and structures are mutated, etc. Hence explicit > declaration should be unnecessary -- except! for those declared "external" > routines that have side effects. Those need to be flagged explicitly to the > compiler. > > - DM > > > ------------------- > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ > To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr