Browse thread
(int * int) <> int*int ?
[
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: | 2006-02-23 (19:03) |
From: | Frédéric_Gava <gava@u...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] (int * int) <> int*int ? |
> # type t=A of int*int and t'= B of (int*int);; > type t = A of int * int > and t' = B of (int * int) > See section 18.3.4 of the manual -- the distinction allows the runtime > representation of t to avoid a level of indirection. Thanks for your anwser but I am not convinced that is a good reason. If "t" is better why " t' " is not automatically tranform into "t" (it is easy, you just delete the global parens). ok (int->int)->int <> int->int->int or int*int*int<>int*(int*int) . Morever I think that int*int=(int*int) "everywhere" in ML... # type t=int*int;; type t = int * int # type t'=(int*int);; type t' = int * int >And since the runtime representations are different, the types have to be different. Wrong, you can the same representation but different types (e.g. int, char or many other examples) Best, FG