]> > Gentlemen! > > There are two features, which might it be useful to support in the > language w/out modifying it much. And they both are about greater > generality of the language. > > First, it would be nice to have constructors as functions like below: > > List. map Some [17] This is only syntaxic sugar. First class constructors are easy to add to the language, that's just a matter of will from the INRIA team to choose to add it or not ( meaning : since they didn't put the feature in the language yet, they might have good reasons to do so. ). > Second, it would also be nice not to have "the concept of constructor > arity", and treat the code below as correct: > > type t = A of int * int > let _ = > match A (17, 0) with > A z -> match z with (x, y) -> () > > Does anybody know, whether this is possible? Or, if not, what are the > prohibiting reasons? This is possible : type t = A of (int * int) Notice the difference : - in the first case, you alloc a block with tag "A" of size 2 - in the second, you alloc a block with tag "A" of size 1 containing a tuple (a block of size 2 with tag 0 containing the two ints). There is then one more indirection in your integers access but the tuple can be returned directly without any added allocation. Nicolas Cannasse ------------------- 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