Browse thread
Type abstraction and (polymorphic) equality
[
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: | sejourne_kevin <sejourne_kevin@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Type abstraction and (polymorphic) equality |
Christophe TROESTLER a écrit : > - One introduces the same capability of providing a special equality > (comparison) for certain types but, during compilation, "expand" > functions till the type for "=" is given by known functions > (something like a "generic" equality). I guess however that that > may cause problems with separate compilation... A generic equality should be one that work with recursives. A such equality is slower than the Pervasives.(=) one. So (=) is just an optimisation of a generic one that don't have been fully implemented. When the compiler generate code he have the complete type, no ? so he can know if a type is recursives or not, so he can select the slow but recursives compliant version are the actual. Maybe that it is more complex than this, no? ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com