]> John Prevost wrote: >>>>>>"ab" == Alessandro Baretta <alex@baretta.com> writes: >>>>> > > ab> I agree so far. But did you actually test the code below? I > ab> have reason to believe you are mistaken in believing that > ab> mutable fields are shared between Oo.copied objects, in such a > ab> way that assignment to such a field in one object will result > ab> in a modification in the value of the same field in all > ab> copies. I would consider such a behavior a major design flaw > ab> in the language. > > The code he gave is correct. The problem arises not when the object > itself contains a mutable field, but when one of its fields contains a > mutable value. (An object with a mutable field, a string, an array, a > record with a mutable field, a ref, etc.) ... > As far as I can tell, the poster to whom you are responding was simply > pointing this out: if a field contains a mutable value (whether the > field itself is mutable or not), the contents of that field are > copied, which results in physical equality of the field values in > those cases where physical identity is important. He doesn't appear > to have claimed that the copied fields themselves have physical > equality. Ah, yes! My mistake. I misread the previous post. I'm sorry for that. I'm coding too much and sleeping too little. Alex ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners