John Prevost wrote:
>>>>>>"ab" == Alessandro Baretta <alex@baretta.com> 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.

Alex

-------------------
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