Browse thread
How important are circular lists/recursive objects?
[
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: | Don Syme <Don.Syme@m...> |
| Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] Re: How important are circular lists/recursive objects? |
Hi Stefan,
You might like to read my paper "Initializing Mutually Referential Abstract Objects", http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2005.11.038, where I argue that this is a serious limitation, and argue the case for an alternative. Interestingly Scala is considering using the kind of recursive initialization I propose in the paper, though much more extensively than I originally proposed.
Cheers & best wishes,
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-bounces@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Stefan Monnier
Sent: 04 April 2007 05:53
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] Re: How important are circular lists/recursive objects?
> The question is: if this behavior was completely outlawed, and either you
> couldn't build up circular lists/recursive data structures of this type at
> all, or had to call special functions (List.circularize, say), to create
> them, would this be a signifigant problem? Does anyone actually use this
> construct, and if so, for what?
This is the case in SML: you need to go through a `ref' cell in order to
create a cycle. This has very rarely been presented as
a serious limitation. OCaml's trick is occasionally useful, but I don't
think anybody would lose her sleep over it.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs