Browse thread
[Caml-list] Has laziness changed type?
-
Alessandro Baretta
-
Xavier Leroy
-
Alessandro Baretta
-
John Prevost
- Alessandro Baretta
-
John Prevost
-
Alessandro Baretta
-
Xavier Leroy
[
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: | Alessandro Baretta <alex@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Has laziness changed type? (with a plea to Xavier...) |
John Prevost wrote: >>>>>>"ab" == Alessandro Baretta <alex@baretta.com> writes: > > ab> This is not terribly useful when you have to match against > ab> only one lazy value, but the situation is different when you > ab> have a tuple of lazy values, and need to perform different > ab> actions depending on which subset of them computes a > ab> meaningful value. > > What's wrong with: > > try (* do something with *) (Lazy.force foo) with _ -> > try (* do something with *) (Lazy.force bar) with _ -> > try (* do something with *) (Lazy.force doh) with _ -> > (* fallback code *) This control structure happens to match perfectly the example I gave, but it is not as general. What If you want to to match conditions where two-out-of-three compute a value? What if the action you take also depends on the actual exception raised by the third? There are a host of examples where a patterm matching would be marvellously clear and concise, that you cannot easily convert to a number of nested try-with expressions. > or > > let lf x = try Some (Lazy.force x) with _ -> None > > match (lf a, lf b, lf c, lf d) with > ... Yes. This is basically my solution. It adds a little "background noise" in the tuple expression being matched. No big deal really. > or even > > type 'a result = Value of 'a | Exception of 'a > > let lf x = try Value (Lazy.force x) with e -> Exception e Ok. This is perfect. It just takes a couple more lines of code and one extra function application per tuple position. This is what I meant when I stated I had to rework my code a little. > > The change to the lazy datatype means you have to do a little extra > effort if you want to maintain this kind of information. But it's not > really a huge deal. > > John. Right, no big deal really. And if it's done for the sake of efficiency, then welcome Xavier's "purple magic". Might I just make a plea for the following library function in the Lazy module? type 'a forced = Value of 'a | Exception of exn let eval susp = try Value(force susp) with ex -> Exception(ex) 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