Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
[
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: | brogoff@s... |
| Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Gregory Morrisett wrote: > MLTON avoids these issues by specializing polymorphic code at > all of its uses so that it becomes monomorphic (not unlike C++), > at the price of separate compilation. And, as I think you're implying, polymorphic recursion. In Okasaki's PFDS book, he describes the techniques you'd use to convert non-uniform types to uniform ones and rewriting the functions. Has anyone played with the idea of automating these transformations, so that a MLTON like monomorphizing compiler could work for a language with non uniform recursion? No, I'm not suggesting that for OCaml. I agree that the OCaml implementation is at some sweet spot where it isn't too complex, is very efficient, compiles quickly, etc. -- Brian ------------------- 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