]> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Damien Doligez wrote: > On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Mike Potanin wrote: > > > The similar problem arises in a case > > let ring l = let rec r = l@r in r > > OCaml type system can not understand that the design is safe. > > But it is not unconditionally safe. Its safety depends on how > you defined the @ function. O'Caml doesn't want to look at > the definition of @ because separate compilation is a very > important feature. If extend type model compiler can handle this case. The type of @ function may content information "this function is realy lazy for second argument". This don't handle all case recurcive data, but impotant case. Mercury language don't handle all "modes" too :-). > > -- Damien ------------------- 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