Browse thread
[Caml-list] Polymorphism and the "for" loop
[
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: | Jon Harrop <jon@j...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Polymorphism and the "for" loop |
On Friday 22 October 2004 07:19, skaller wrote: > ...I consider that a bug... I'd have to go right ahead and disagree with you there. Surely a "procedure" returns no information, which can be achieved by returning the only value from a type representing a singleton set, i.e. _the_ value of the type unit. > type void = [] Why not "`void"? I've been wondering about this recently: how do the compilers store types which contain "unit". For example, if we have a tree: type 'a 'b tree = Leaf of 'a | Node of 'b * 'a 'b tree * 'a 'b tree Does a "unit unit tree" take up less space than a "int int tree"? The reason I'm asking is that it might be nice to generalise data structures as much as possible and then specialise them using "unit" arguments. Cheers, Jon. ------------------- 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