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: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Unboxing options, was RE: assertions or exceptions? |
On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 03:20, John Prevost wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:38:14 -0500 (CDT), Brian Hurt <bhurt@spnz.org> wrote: > > 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 This is wrong. The representation being suggested is: None -> NULL Some 'a -> pointer to 'a Clearly this represntation is faithful and nothing more than an interpretation of the corresponding C concept. Some Some 1 is obviously distinct from Some 1 as reqiuired: pointer to pointer to 1 is distinct from pointer to 1. Some None is a pointer to NULL, which is distinct from None which is just NULL. Perhaps this won't work with the Ocaml runtime but there is no problem with the typing. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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