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] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
Brian Hurt <> writes:

> So now you a dozen different specializations of foo<>.  All almost
> identical.  Say bye bye to any code locality.  And this isn't even
> mentioning badly designed templates, like the one I found (no
> kidding!)  for an array template that took it's length as a
> parameter.  The compiler had to produce different specializations of
> the code for arrays length 3 and arrays length 4.

You didn't choose a very good example. The compiler will certainly
inline both operator[] and .size(), which will result in probably
smaller and certainly faster code.


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