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] ocaml killer
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-01-30 (20:11)
From: skaller <skaller@t...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and concurrency
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:05, Martin Berger wrote:
> > Perhaps because you're a type theorist? <g>
> being a type theorist has many disadvantages ...
> > C not only *does* have function types, it has
> > first class function values just like ML does.
> well, i'm not so sure about this for two reasons.
> firstly, NULL-pointers 
>     (A --> T) + Error

Agree. I glossed over that :-)

> secondly, there's the "location restriction". maybe it's an
> issue of taste, but one might argue that for function really
> being first class -- as in lambda calculi, whenever we have
> a piece of code C with free variable x_1 of type T_1, ...,
> x_n of type T_n, then we can abstract and form
> (lambda x_1 ... x_n . C), as we can in ML, but not
> in C/Java/C++.

Neither ML nor C is lambda calculus: they use distinct syntax.
ML is closer of course, but in C you can always abstract a piece
of code even if it means passing all the variables in the 
environment one at a time.

John Max Skaller,
snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix:

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