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: | 2007-04-04 (08:46) |
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