On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Damien Doligez wrote:

> On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Mike Potanin wrote:
>
> > The similar problem arises in a case
> > let ring l = let rec r = l@r in r
> > OCaml type system can not understand that the design is safe.
>
> But it is not unconditionally safe.  Its safety depends on how
> you defined the @ function.  O'Caml doesn't want to look at
> the definition of @ because separate compilation is a very
> important feature.

If extend type model compiler can handle this case. The type of @ function
may content information "this function is realy lazy for second argument".
This don't handle all case recurcive data, but impotant case.
Mercury language don't handle all "modes" too :-).

>
> -- Damien

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