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] assertions or exceptions?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: John Carr <jfc@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Unboxing options, was RE: assertions or exceptions?

> > One of the problems with returning error conditions instead of throwing
> > exceptions is the cost of boxing a 'a option.  I'd like to advocate for
> > the idea of unboxing 'a options.
> This has been discussed before.  The essential problem is this:
> Currently:
> type 'a option is not the same as type 'a option option
> Some Some 1 is not the same as Some 1
> Some None is not the same as None
> With unboxed options:
> type 'a option is the same as type 'a option option
> Some Some 1 is identical to Some 1
> Some None is identical to None

So use true 0 as opposed to the integer 0 internally represented as 1
to mean "None".  This adds some complexity but may be worth the effort
as options are common.

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