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: | 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 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