On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 10:26:16PM +0200, Sven wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Miles Egan wrote:
> > This approach has, in my mind, two advantages:
> > 1. The object system becomes more generally useful.
> > 2. A confusing and non-orthogonal feature of ocaml is subsumed into
> >    another, more generally useful and flexible feature.
> 
> But object are more heavyweight than plain record, which are, if i am not wrong,
> just named tuples.

I'm not sure about the runtime efficiency of objects, but in terms of memory
usage objects use one more field (word, I think?) of storage than a record with
the same instance members.

-- 
miles

"We in the past evade X, where X is something which we believe to be a
lion, through the act of running." - swiftrain@geocities.com
-------------------
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