Browse thread
[Caml-list] look operator
- Winfried Dreckmann
[
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: | Winfried Dreckmann <wd@l...> |
| Subject: | [Caml-list] look operator |
Dear everyone, I can't resist to ask for people's opinion on a certain compromise between imperative and functional programming which a found in the "numerix" library of Michel Quercia. Of course, if you read this, Michel, I would be particularly grateful for your own opinion. It's about abstracting the ! operator by introducing a function val look : tref -> t which coerces a mutable object into a non-mutable one. Using this function is dangerous because, with this function, the non-mutable type t is not strictly non-mutable anymore. As the manual says, the result of "look r" is volatile, it is only guaranteed to be valid until the next in-place operation involving r. In my own experience, mistakes occur faster than expected. But this is a great and elegant trick. Using "look", every single function with arguments of type t, say val add_in : tref -> t -> t -> unit, replaces two or more functions which would otherwise be necessary, in this case val add_in1 : tref -> t -> t -> unit val add_in2 : tref -> tref -> t -> unit val add_in3 : tref -> tref -> tref -> unit at least. This would certainly blow up the library to impractical dimensions. Of course, overloading would help, and "look" might become obsolete in this way. However, I think the problem is not mainly about overloading, but about reintroducing imperative features in an abstract and controlled way. I could, for instance, also imagine an abstract assign operator val set : tref -> t -> unit where the contents of t is not copied but assigned to tref, and thus made mutable, which could be useful in certain restricted ways. My question to the caml list: Would you accept such constructions as decent Caml programming, if applied carefully and only in cases where it allows what is otherwise impossible (e. g. integrating mutable and non-mutable objects as it is done in "numerix"). Or is it all just a silent reintroduction of C pointers, and principally a bad thing? Regards, Winfried Dreckmann ------------------- 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/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners