Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Doubly-linked list
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-08-23 (21:57)
From: John Max Skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: Polymorphic recursion 9Was Re: [Caml-list] Doubly-linked list)
Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:

> Brian Rogoff a écrit
>>Oh I'm not arguing that point, I totally agree that it's omission is a 
>>bad thing. However, not everyone agrees, since you it becomes a lot tougher
>>to build a monomorphizing compiler if you allow it, though it has been 
>>suggested that the same tricks you use to manually remove polymorphic
>>recursion could be used in an SSC (sufficiently smart compiler). 
> I do not agree with your analysis since I really do not believe anyone
> could think that polymorphic recursion is useless. But it is a
> _difficult_ subject and the Caml Team is working on it (you can read
> their research summary)

I'm confused. I think you mean *type inference* is difficult
if you want polymorphic recursion?

John Max Skaller,
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: