Browse thread
Why + vs +. but "fake" parametric polymorphism for <
[
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: | luc.maranget@i... |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Why + vs +. but "fake" parametric polymorphism for < |
> > Of course, you may ask why Ocaml's inlining feature isn't clever enough > to do late specialisation, at least of functions that can be inlined. I > don't know. > > Gerd > -- Technically, the ocamlc and ocamlopt compilers share a common front end that performs the specialization (on the so-called typed syntax, if I remember well). By design, both compilers have a lot common. Only the ocamlopt compiler performs inlining, on a later internal representation of code. As to re-performing specialisation in ocamlopt back-end, precise types are lost there, I am afraid. This may be by design. --Luc