[
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: | 2001-12-10 (08:13) |
From: | Francois Pottier <francois.pottier@i...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] mutability analysis too strict? |
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 05:43:41PM +0200, Ohad Rodeh wrote: > > let h = Hashtbl.create 10;; > h : ('_a, '_b) Hashtbl.t > > The objects and keys in the table are infered to be mutable. However, > in my case, they are immutable and I have to coerce them using Obj.magic > from '_b to 'b. You are slightly wrong here: the analysis infers the table itself (not the keys or objects in it) to be mutable, which it indeed is. If the table was given a polymorphic type, you would be able to store objects of a certain type and to retrieve them at another type (by taking different instances of 'b), which would be unsound. Furthermore, I'm surprised to hear that using Obj.magic helps; indeed, any application of Obj.magic is itself deemed `dangerous' by O'Caml, leading to the following behavior: # let h = Hashtbl.create 10;; val h : ('_a, '_b) Hashtbl.t = <abstr> # let h = (Obj.magic h : ('a, 'b) Hashtbl.t);; val h : ('_a, '_b) Hashtbl.t = <abstr> That is, Obj.magic doesn't help at all in this case. Perhaps you could tell us what you are trying to achieve? Any polymorphic, mutable structure is unsound and rightly rejected. A monomorphic, mutable structure that contains polymorphic data is sound, but cannot be expressed in ML's type system where universal quantification must be prenex. -- François Pottier Francois.Pottier@inria.fr http://pauillac.inria.fr/~fpottier/ ------------------- 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