>Only historical reasons, AFAIK. I do not believe this is necessary or that
>there is a logical reason for doing so.
Peraps. I do not know. Peraps also to keep safe old programs...

>I also believe that statement was wrong but I don't think you have provided
>counter-examples because the run-time representations are the same for the
>different types that you cite (rather than the converse).

I just want to say that in or char have the same representation but
different types (contraposition)

>Also, note that this behaviour does not appear with polymorphic variants,
>where int * int <=> (int * int):

># type t = A of int * int | B of (int * int);;
>type t = A of int * int | B of (int * int)
># type t = [ `A of int * int | `B of (int * int) ];;
>type t = [ `A of int * int | `B of int * int ]

>I assume the arguments of a polymorphic variant are always boxed...

This is why you could not have more than 255 constructor in concrete
variants and many more in polymorphic ones.


FG