On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:24:15AM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> 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).

I don't think this is related to the type system of OCaml. It seems to
be just an inefficient implementation: the part of the compiler dealing
with arrays is apparently not tail-recursive (see feature wish 2306 in
the bug database).

Achim
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
                                                              | \_____/ |
   Achim Blumensath                                          \O/ \___/\ |
   LaBRI / Bordeaux                                          =o=  \ /\ \|
   www-mgi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~blume                  /"\   o----|
____________________________________________________________________\___|

-------------------
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