Browse thread
[Caml-list] assertions or exceptions?
[
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: | Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Unboxing options, was RE: assertions or exceptions? |
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, John Carr wrote:
> There is also no way to distinguish 0 from None in the current
> system. OCaml relies on type information to determine the meaning
> of a value.
Yes, but in Some(0), the 0 is boxed (because of the Some)- so Some(0) is
different from None. I trust the type checker to make sure I can't have 0
and None in the same variable, just like I trust the type checker to make
sure I can't have 0 and false in the same variable.
>
> Is there valid code (no Obj.magic) that cares that (Some None) and
> (None) are both represented by the same bit pattern?
let foo = function
| None -> 0
| Some(None) -> 1
| Some(Some(_)) -> 2
;;
Now, wether you would actually see code like that in the "real world" is a
different argument.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford
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