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
[Caml-list] Obj.magic, Obj.t etc.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-08-15 (15:54)
From: brogoff@s...
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Obj.magic, Obj.t etc.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> IMHO a separate float_array type would be better. 

I agree. 

> The main problem is that it would need a different syntax for element access 
> and separate versions of Array functions. You couldn't use the same code polymorphically for int 
> and float arrays, but we don't have polymorphic arithmetic anyway...

Also, we already have the same problem now with respect to array syntax for 
strings and bigarrays (and hashtables and ...). 

> I wonder if it's improved when generics are adopted.

I think it will improve a lot of things, if something like generics is in the 
language. However, there is another issue lurking here, about whether the 
Array element is boxed or not. In the Clean language the distinction is in the 
type system. 

-- Brian

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