Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Deep copy
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Alessandro Baretta <alex@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Deep copy

John Prevost wrote:
>>>>>>"ab" == Alessandro Baretta <> writes:
>     ab> I agree so far. But did you actually test the code below? I
>     ab> have reason to believe you are mistaken in believing that
>     ab> mutable fields are shared between Oo.copied objects, in such a
>     ab> way that assignment to such a field in one object will result
>     ab> in a modification in the value of the same field in all
>     ab> copies. I would consider such a behavior a major design flaw
>     ab> in the language.
> The code he gave is correct.  The problem arises not when the object
> itself contains a mutable field, but when one of its fields contains a
> mutable value.  (An object with a mutable field, a string, an array, a
> record with a mutable field, a ref, etc.)
> As far as I can tell, the poster to whom you are responding was simply
> pointing this out: if a field contains a mutable value (whether the
> field itself is mutable or not), the contents of that field are
> copied, which results in physical equality of the field values in
> those cases where physical identity is important.  He doesn't appear
> to have claimed that the copied fields themselves have physical
> equality.

Ah, yes! My mistake. I misread the previous post. I'm sorry 
for that. I'm coding too much and sleeping too little.


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: