Browse thread
[Caml-list] Formal Methods
[
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: | 2004-10-01 (08:24) |
From: | Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...> |
Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] Formal Methods |
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Jacques Carette wrote: > I also see an analogy with type systems such as Ocaml's: in theory, type > inference is exponential, while in practice it is very fast. This is > because the worst cases are very degenerate, and do not tend to occur in > common / meaningful programs. Well, I this is quite different from what I experience if I use a (perl) code-generator which spits out ocaml code. I don't know if this is still a problem, but I already encountered severe difficulties when trying to compile a fixed constant definition of an array (length ~380 000) of arrays (length ~10) of strings (length ~4). -- regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU) ------------------- 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